THE  CONFERENCE 


Called  by  the  Governor  of  Pennsylvania  to  Consider 

Ways  and  Means  for  Preventing  the  Spread 

of  the  Chestnut  Tree  Bark  Disease 


THE  CAPITOL 

Chamber  of  the  House  of  Representatives 

HARRISBURG   -  PENNSYLVANIA 
FEBRUARY  20  and  21,  1912 


Stenographic  Report  of  Proceedings 
of  the  Conference 


%eporled  by  GUILBERT  &  LEWIS 

519  Land  Title  Building 

Philadelphia,    Pa. 


HARRISBURG: 
O.  E,  AUGHINBAUGH,  PRINTER  TO  THE  STATE  OF  PENNSYLVANIA 

1912. 


I  £ 

!fi>Ji!ii>li!ii!li>li!i;>i;>S 


FOREWORD. 


Tlie  following  report  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Harrisburg 
Chestnut  Blight  Conference  is  distributed  with  the  compliments 
and  best  wishes  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania.  The  numerous 
papers  and  the  discussions  thereon  contain  many  new  and 
valuable  ideas.  It  is  believed  that  the  ultimate  worth  of  the 
Conference  will  lie  in  the  fact  that  it  brought  home  to  the  east- 
ern United  States  the  truth  concerning  a  most  serious  tree  dis- 
ease, and  started  discussions  and  a  new  trend  of  thought  which 
must  evolve  real  benefit  for  the  whole  people.  If  the  Conference 
can  produce  a  better  understanding  and  higher  appreciation 
respecting  the  value  of  trees,  and  of  one  tree  in  particular,  its 
calling  will  have  been  of  great  public  benefit. 

The  officers  chosen  by  the  meeting  take  this  last  opportunity 
of  expressing  to  the  Governor,  the  Chestnut  Tree  Blight  Com- 
mission and  the  Delegates  from  the  States,  their  sense  of  high 
appreciation  for  the  honor  conferred  upon  them  in  being  invited 
to  preside  over  the  deliberations  of  the  Conference.  They  also 
have  hopes  that  information  may  be  found  in  the  following  pages 
'W'hich  will  incite  greater  interest  in  the  earnest  work  now  being 
undertaken  in  Penns^dvania  and  other  States  to  prevent  the  fur- 
ther spread  of  this  serious  and  destructive  Chestnut  Bark  Dis- 
ease. 


New   York,    CJiainnan. 


^^S^iS  A^iit^^^^^ 


Pennsylvania , 


Secretaries. 


Maryland, 


(3) 


(4) 


OFFICIAL  CALL  FOR  CONFERENCE. 


The  Official  Invitation  for  the  Chestnut  Tree  Bark 

Disease  Conference,  issued  by  the  Governor 

of  Pennsylvania. 


^le/l^^J^e^■9^^?r:^':^'?u^^t/Mfay?^e^yC€'rm 


(5) 


i 


(6) 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2010  with  funding  from 

Boston  Library  Consortium  IVIember  Libraries 


http://www.archive.org/details/conferencecalled01penn 


Map  of  Pennsylvania  Showing  Infected  Zones  and  Percentage. 

1.  Bucks,  Montgomery,  Chester,  Delaware  and  Phi'ladelohia  counties,  80  per 
cent  2  Pike,  Monroe,  Carbon,  Northampton,  Lehigh,  Berks,  Lancaster  and 
York  counties'  50  per  cent.  3.  Wayne,  Lackawanna,  Wyoming,  Luzerne,  Co- 
lumbia, Montour,  Northumberland,  Union,  Snyder,  Juniata,  Perry,  Dauphin, 
Schuylkill,  Lebanon,  Cumberland,  Franklin  and  Adams  counties,  15  per  cent. 
4.  From  the  western  boundary  of  these  counties  to  the  quarantine  line  indicated  on 
the  map,   the  infected  trees  are  estimated  at  1  to  5  per  cent. 


COMMONWEALTH    OF  PENNSYLVANIA 

THE  PENNSYLVANIA 
CHESTNUT  TREE   BLIGHT  COMMISSION. 

The  call  issued  by  tlie  Governor,  iu  which  he  urged  the  im- 
portance and  necessity  for  prompt  and  concerted  action  in  com- 
bating the  Chestnut  Bark  Disease,  included  the  following 
statement: 

"In  1911,  the  Pennsylvania  State  Legislature  passed  a  bill  au- 
thorizing the  Governor  to  appoint  a  Commission  of  five  citizens 
for  the  j)urpose  of  thoroughly  investigating  the  Chestnut  Tree 
Bark  Disease  which  is  rapidly  destroying  the  chestnut  trees  of 
the  Commonwealth.  The  Act  placed  an  appropriation  of  |275,- 
000  at  the  disposal  of  the  Commission  for  the  investigation  and 
scientific  study  of  the  x>roblem,  and  more  specifically  to  ascer- 
tain the  exact  extent  of  the  blight,  and  to  devise  ways  and  means 
through  which  it  might,  if  possible,  be  stamped  out. 

The  Commission  was  appointed  in  June,  1911,  and,  after  or- 
ganization, began  its  work  immediately  by  sending  a  large  force 
of  experts  into  the  field.  The  reports  of  these  experts  together 
with  the  results  of  the  work  of  the  pathological  staff,  will,  among 
other  matters,  be  i^resented  for  discussion  to  a  Convention  called 
by  the  Governor  to  assemble  at  Harrisburg,  February  20th, 
1912. 

In  order  that  the  other  States  not  yet  touched  by  the  blight, 
but  certainly  in  its  line  of  advance,  may  realize  the  seriousness 
of  the  situation,  the  G  overnor,  who  is  much  interested,  has  called 
this  Convention  for  a  consideration  of  ways  and  means,  in  the 
hope  that  the  States  may  be  aroused  to  action  and  be  ready  to 
meet  the  invasion  at  tlieir  borders.  Pennsylvania's  i)roblem  is 
now  or  soon  will  become  the  problem  of  Maine,  Vermont,  New 
Hampshire,  Massachusetts,  Ehode  Island,  Connecticut,  New 
York,  New  Jersey,  Delaware,  Maryland,  Virginia,  North  Caro- 
lina, South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Alabama,  Mississippi,  Tennessee, 
Kentucky,  West  Virginia,  Ohio,  Indiana  and  Michigan.  Active 
co-operation  of  the  States  is  essential.  The  attendance  of  a 
large  number  of  Delegates  is  respectfully  urged." 

(7) 


(8) 


COMMONWEALTH   OF  PENNSYLVANIA 


PROGRAMME 

of 

THE  CONFERENCE 

Called  by  the  Governor  of  Pennsylvania 
to  Consider  Ways  and  Means 

for 

PREVENTING  THE  SPREAD 

of  the 

CHESTNUT  TREE  BARK  DISEASE 


February  20  and  21,  1912 

THE  CAPITOL 

Chamber  of  the  House  of  Representatives 

HARRISBURG        -        PENNSYLVANIA 


An  office  for  registration  and  information  will  be  opened  in  one  of  the 

ante-rooms  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  and   it  is  earnestly 

requested  that  all  delegates  and  guests  will 

promptly  register. 


(0) 


(10) 


PROGRAMME 


OPENING  SESSION 
Tuesday,   February  20,  2  o'clock  P.   M. 


ORGANIZATION  OF  THE  CONFERENCE. 

1.  Call  to  Order  and  Address  of  Welcome  to  Delegates  and  Visit- 

ing Friends^  hy  the  Honorahle  John  K.  Tener,  Governor  of 
Pennsylvania. 

Election  of  Permanent  Chairman  for  the  Conference. 

Election  of  Two  Secretaries. 

Designation  of  Official  Reporters. 

Appointment  of  a  Committee  on  Resolutions. 

2.  Responses  to  the  Governor's  Address  hy  Delegates  on  Behalf 

of  the  States  Represented. 

3.  "Historical  Review  and  the  Pathological  Asj^ccts  of  the  Chest- 

nut Bark  Disease.'- 

A  discourse  and  illustrated  lecture  by  Dr.  Haven  Metcalf, 

U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture,  Washington,  D.  C.      (Dr. 

Metcalfs  paper  will  summarize  the  record  of  work  to  date, 

and  present  the  leading  pathological  features  of  this  tree 

disease.) 

Many  of  the  lantern  views  will  be  shown  for  the  first  time, 
having  been  especially  made  for  this  occasion. 

4.  "Can  the  Chestnut  Bark  Disease  he  Controlled  f 

By  Prof.  F.  C.  Stewart,  N.  Y.  Agricultural  Experiment 
Station,  Geneva,  N,  Y. 

(11) 


12 

5.  ^'Hoio  Further  Research  May  Increase  the  Efficiency  of  the 
Control  of  the  Chestnut  Bark  Disease" 

By  Prof.  W.  Howard  Eankin,  Cornell  University,  Itliaca, 
N.  Y. 

G.  "Recent  Notes  on  the  Chestnut  Bark  Disease." 

By  Prof.  H.  E.  Fulton,  Division  of  Pathology,  Pennsylva- 
nia State  College. 

7.  "The  Possihility  of  a  Medicinal  Remedy  for  Chestnut  Blight." 

By  Dr.  Caroline  Eumbokl,  in  cliarge  of  the  Pennsylvania 
Chestnnt  Tree  Blight  Commission's  Laboratory. 

8.  "Treatment  of  Individual  Trees/' 

By  Prof.  J.  Franklin  Collins,  U.  S.  Department  of  Agri- 
culture, Washington,  D.  C. 

9.  General  Discussion. 


EVENING    SESSION 
Tuesday,  February  20,  8  o'clock,   P.   M. 

1.  "Chestnut  Culture." 

An  illustrated  lecture  by  Prof.  Nelson  F.  Davis,  of  Buck- 
nell  University,  Lewisburg,  Penna.  In  this  lecture  Prof. 
Davis  will  exhibit  the  value  of  the  chestnut  trees  as  a  source 
of  food  (nuts),  and  outline  the  progress  made  in  the  new 
American  industry,  chestnut  cultivation. 
The  insect  enemies  of  the  chestnut,  and  the  methods  of  con- 
trolling them  will  be  shown. 

Many  of  the  views  have  been  especially  prepared  for  the 
occasion,  and  will  be  shoAvn  for  the  first  time. 

2.  General  Discussion. 


MORNING   SESSION 
Wednesday,    February  21,  9  o'clock,  A.    M. 

EliADICATION  AND  CONTKOL  OF  THE  CHESTNUT 
BARK  DISEASE. 

1.  "T/ie  Pennsijlvania  Programme." 

By  Samuel  B.  Detwiler,  Executive  Ofiicer  of  the  Peunsjd- 
vania  Chestnut  Tree  Blight  Commission. 

2.  Reports  hy  State  Foresters,  or  other  officials  of  States  repre- 

sented, on  the  present  extent  of  the  bark  disease  and  esti- 
mate of  the  present  and  possible  future  loss. 

3.  ^'Chestnut  Blight  and  the  Future  of  our  Forests." 

By  Dr.  H.  P.  Baker,  Department  of  Forestry,  State  College, 
Penna. 

4.  "Chestnut  Blight  and  Constructive  Conservation." 

By  Dr.  J.  Russell  Smith,  Professor  of  Industry,  University 
of  Pennsylvania,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

5.  Open  Discussion  of  the  Problems  Presented. 


AFTERNOON  SESSION 
Wednesday,   February  21,   2  o'clock,   P.   M. 

1.  Presentation  of  the  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Resolutions. 

2.  General  Discussion. 
Adjournment. 

(13.) 


14 

In  addition  to  the  above  stated  j)apers  on  the  advance  pr6- 
gramme,  others  were  read  or  formally  presented  as  follows: 

1.  A  paper  on  the  "Botanical  History  of  Diaporthe  'pnrasitica 

and  Allied  or  Identical  Fnngi,"  by  Prof.  W.  G.  Farlow, 
of  Harvard  University ;  read  by  Prof.  G.  P.  Clinton. 

2.  A  paper  on  the  "lielation  of  Insects  to  the  Chestnnt  Bark 

Disease,"  by  Dr.  A.  D.  Hopkins,  of  the  Bnrean  of  En- 
tomology, U.  S.  Dept.  of  Agriculture,  Washington,  and 
read  by  him. 

3.  A    paper    entitled    "Chestnut    Blight    and    its   Possible 

Eemedy,"  by  Mr.  W.  M.  Benson,  of  the  Oak  Extract 
Company,  Newport,  Perry  Co.,  Pa. 

4.  A  paper  entitled  "The  Field  Work  of  the  Chestnut  Tree 

Blight  Commission,"  by  Thomas  E.  Francis,  Field  Su- 
pervisor of  the  Pennsylvania  Chestnut  Tree  Blight  Com- 
mission. 

5.  A  paper  entitled  "A  Report  on  Scout  Work  on  the  North 

Branch  of  Bald  Eagle  Mountain,  between  Sylvan  Dell 
and  Williamsport,  Lycoming  county.  Pa.,"  by  Hugh  E. 
Wells,  Field  Supervisor  of  the  Penna.  Chestnut  Tree 
Blight  Commission. 


Conference  for  Preventing  the  Spread  of  the 
Chestnut  Tree  Bark  Disease. 


OPENING  SESSION 
Tuesday,   February  20,  1912,  2  o'clock,  P.   M. 


CALL  TO  OKDER  AND  ADDRESS  OF  WELCOME  TO  DEL- 
EGATES AND  VISITING  FRIENDS,  BY  THE  HON. 
JOHN  K.  TENER,  GOVERNOR  OF 
PENNSYLVANIA. 


GOVERNOR  TENER:  Gentlemen,  the  meeting  will  please 
be  in  order. 

Let  me  say  at  the  ontset,  speaking  for  this  Commonwealtli  and 
less  for  myself  personally,  that  we  are  gratified  indeed  at  the 
splendid  representation  here  to-day,  bearing  testimony  to  the 
great  interest  manifested  in  the  work  at  hand. 

I  know  that  many  of  you  have  come  from  afar,  many  of  you  at 
great  inconvenience  and  certainly  at  expense  to  yourselves  or  to 
the  State  or  Association  that  you  represent,  in  order  that  3^ou 
might  meet  with  us  here,  in  the  Capital  City  of  Pennsylvania, 
to  discuss  and  to  consider  seriously  the  objects  and  the  pur- 
poses of  this  meeting. 

It  is  not  my  purpose  to  enter  into  an  extended  discourse  upon 
the  subject  of  the  chestnut  tree  blight  or  bark  disease,  but 
rather  to  extend  just  a  word  of  Avelcome  to  you,  on  behalf  of 
our  Commonwealth  and  our  city,  and  also  to  suggest  what  might 
be  proper  for  jowr  consideration  at  this  time;  to  go  over  briefly 
the  extent  of  this  disease  in  the  area  it  now  covers;  what  it 
means  to  us  if  it  spreads  farther,  and  what  it  has  meant  to  us; 
the  value  of  our  chestnut  trees,  and  a  suggestion  of  what  I  hope 

(15) 


10 

3^011  may  be  able  to  arrive  at  before  you  leave  us.  We  know  that 
in  conventions,  Ave  cannot  exercise  any  governmental  function; 
yet  Ave  A\'ant  tliis  to  be  something  more  than  a  "resolve  to  re- 
solve" meeting,  and  Ave  hope  that  something  really  tangible  Avill 
result  from  it.  I  have  noted  just  a  feAV  things  Avhich,  as  I 
stated  before,  I  Avould  like  to  have  you  consider  in  your  delibera- 
tions : 

This  Conference  has  been  called  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining 
all  possible  information  concerning  the  best  methods  of  fighting 
the  destructive  fungous  disease  knoA\ai  as  the  chestnut  tree  bark 
disease  or  the  chestnut  tree  blight,  A\iiich  vs^as  first  detected  in 
the  neighborhood  of  NeAV  York  City  about  eight  years  ago,  and 
has  since  spread  to  the  Northeast  as  far  as  Eastern  Massachu- 
setts, and  to  the  SouthAvest  as  far  as  Central  Pennsylvania, 
Maryland  and  Northern  Virginia. 

This  tree  disease  is  virulent  in  character.  To  date,  no  specific 
remedy  to  be  applied  to  individual  trees  is  knoA\^n. 

It  seems  almost  unthinkable  that  a  disease  of  this  character 
should  have  invaded  so  large  an  area  and  that  no  means  of  pre- 
venting its  spread  is  yet  at  hand.  Unless  this  disease  be  stopped 
by  concerted  action  among  the  States,  it  is  certain  that  Avithin 
a  tevi  years  very  fcAV  living  A\ald  chestnut  trees  Avill  be  found  in 
America.  It  is,  therefore,  entirely  in  accord  A^ath  the  American 
spirit  that  A\^e  make  every  effort  to  destroy  or  check  the  advance 
of  this  blight. 

The  value  of  the  standing  chestnut  stock  to-day  in  America  is 
enormous.  In  Pennsylvania  alone,  the  ANild  chestnut  tree  is 
found  native  throughout  the  State,  and  in  its  southern  counties 
is  the  principal  remaining  forest  tree.  The  value  of  this  tree  in 
the  State  of  Virginia  is  reliably  conceded  by  competent  au- 
thority to  be  not  less  than  thirty-five  millions  of  dollars.  I  be- 
lieve that  here  in  Pennsylvania,  by  a  very  conservative  estimate, 
placing  a  valuation  of  fifty  cents  upon  each  tree  in  our  A\^ood- 
lands,  Avhich  you  Avill  admit  is  a  very  Ioaa^  estimate,  the  value  of 
the  A^dld  chestnut  trees  is  at  least  forty  millions  of  dollars. 

The  best  chestnut  in  the  A^^orld  is  still  standing  in  the  moun- 
tains of  North  Carolina,  West  Virginia,  Eastern  Kentucky  and 
Tennessee.  The  chestnut  stock  of  the  future  must  necessarily 
be  draAvn  from  these  states.     To  date,  the-  W^^t  lias  not  reached 


17 

that  region,  but  is  steadily  tending  in  that  direction.  This  tree 
is  also  of  great  value  in  Ohio  and  the  remaining  Atlantic  Sea- 
board States,  and  by  reason  of  the  all  too  prevalent  forest  de- 
struction going  on,  the  tree  can  ill  be  spared ;  much  less  its  value 
wasted,  as  it  largely  will  be,  should  the  remaining  chestnut 
stock  be  attacked. 

The  destruction  of  the  wild  chestnut  trees  in  New  Jersey,  in 
Southeastern  New  York,  Western  Connecticut  and  Massachu- 
setts and  Southeastern  Pennsylvania  is  marked  to  be  complete. 

The  industries  depending  upon  the  wild  chestnut  tree  for 
their  support  are  of  large  proportions  and  great  value.  Every 
part  of  the  tree  is  valuable  for  making  tannic  acid,  used  in  the 
tanning  industry.  Telegraph  and  telephone  companies  depend 
mostly  upon  this  tree  for  their  stock  of  poles.  The  railroad  com- 
j)anies  are  largely  dependent  upon  it  for  their  best  railroad  ties. 
The  nuts  are  no  inconsiderable  part  of  this  valuable  product. 
Many  thousands  of  men  are  employed  in  the  industries  depend- 
ing upon  the  saving  of  the  wild  chestnut  tree,  and  many  other 
thousands  of  real  estate  owners  Avill  find  their  land  values  seri- 
ously affected  should  the  tree  ultimately  be  destroyed. 

Two  great  facts  to  be  borne  in  mind  are,  first^  that  the  plague 
is  Avith  us  and  it  must  be  reckoned  with;  and  second  that  har- 
monious action  and  complete  co-operation  among  all  the  inter- 
ests involved,  as  well  as  the  governments  of  the  various  states,- 
can  and  will  be  the  onl}^  means  of  checking  this  disease,  if  it  can 
be  checked.  We  are  not  so  much  concerned  with  its  origin  as 
we  are  with  its  presence  and  effects.  While  its  botanical  his- 
tory and  pathology  are  of  imj)ortance,  the  real  thing  is  prepared- 
ness to  repel  the  invader,  using  every  means  known  to  science  and 
practical  experience. 

It  is,  therefore,  to  be  hoped  that  this  aspect  of  the  problem 
will  be  thoroughly  taken  hold  of  and  discussed  from  every  point 
of  view,  that  concerted  action  will  be  immediately  inaugurated, 
and  no  effort  left  unemployed  that  might  produce  desirable  re- 
sults. The  time  to  act  is  now,  and  not  after  the  scientific  world 
has  more  fully  worked  out  the  history  and  pathology  of  the  dis- 
ease. Present  day  practical  measures  may  well  be  aided  by 
scientific  inquiry,  but  the  one  by  no  means  must  wait  upon  the 


18 

other.  It  was  because  of  Pennsylvania's  realization  of  the  im- 
portance of  this  work  that  the  Legislature,  at  its  last  session 
enacted  a  bill  creating  a  commission  and  defining  the  duties  of 
that  commission,  as  well  as  appropriated  an  adequate  amount  to 
carry  on  the  work.  Without  reviewing  that  bill  in  its  full  text, 
it  might  be  said  that  the  proposed  Commission  was  given  the 
direction  to  seek  out  and  destroy  this  disease.  As  Admiral 
Dewey,  you  remember,  at  about  the  outset  of  our  war  witli  Spain 
was  directed  by  President  McKinley  and  the  Cabinet  to  seek  out 
the  Spanish  fleet  and  destroy  it,  so  it  might  be  said  that  the 
only  direction  given  this  Commission  was  to  find  this  dread 
chestnut  bark  disease,  and  destroy  it. 

That  Commission  has  been  organized,  and  this  State  is  in- 
deed fortunate  in  being  able  to  command  the  services  of  such 
splendid  men,  such  capable  men  as  Messrs.  Sargent,  Peirce, 
Craig,  Bodine  and  Ely,  who  have  gone  about  their  work  with  the 
determination  to  do  all  that  is  possible  to  bring  about  the  de- 
sired results. 

Were  the  cause  of  this  disease  known,  and  did  we  know  how 
to  combat  it  and  how  to  destroy  it,  a  meeting  of  this  kind  would 
be  unnecessary;  but  we  do  know  something  of  its  ravages,  how 
it  attacks  the  trees,  and  now  we  are  here  to  consider  how  we 
shall  blot  it  out;  how  we  shall  arrive  at  the  source  of  it,  if  pos- 
•sible,  and  then  blot  out  the  disease  comj^letely. 

I  am  prepared  now  to  consider  a  motion  looking  to  a  proper 
organization  of  this  convention  for  the  carrying  out  of  its  work, 
and  for  the  proper  recording  of  your  deliberations  to-day. 

MR.  HAROLD  PEIRCE :  I  Avould  nominate,  as  permanent 
chairman  of  the  Conference,  Dr.  R.  A.  Pearson,  former  Commis- 
sioner of  Agriculture  of  the  State  of  New  York,  and  as  secretar- 
ies, Messrs.  F.  W.  Besley,  of  Maryland,  and  Samuel  B.  Det- 
wiler,  of  Pennsylvania. 

THE  GOVERNOR:  You  have  heard  the  motion.  The  ques- 
tion is  upon  the  election  of  Mr.  R.  A.  Pearson,  former  Commis- 
sioner of  Agriculture  of  the  State  of  New  York,  as  chairman  of 
this  Conference,  and  Messrs.  F.  W.  Besley,  of  Maryland  and  S.  B. 
Detwiler,  of  Pennsylvania,  to  serve  as  secretaries  of  this  Con- 
ference. 

The  motion  was  put  and  unanimously  carried.  ; 


19 

THE  GOVEENOE:  Mr.  Pearson  is  unanimously  elected 
chairman,  and  Messrs.  Besley  and  Detwiler  are  unanimously 
elected  secretaries.  I  would  suggest,  gentlemen,  for  the  com- 
plete organization  for  the  transaction  of  your  business,  that 
some  one  be  selected  or  designated  to  report  the  proceedings  of 
this  convention. 

ME.  I.  C.  WILLIAMS :  I  suggest  the  name  of  Mr.  Victor  G. 
Marquissee,  who  is  here  prepared  to  report  the  proceedings  of 
this  convention. 

THE  GOVEENOE :  Without  objection,  the  gentleman  named 
in  the  motion  will  report  the  proceedings  of  this  Convention. 
I  now  take  very  great  pleasure  in  presenting  to  you,  and  calling 
to  the  Chair,  the  Chairman  whom  you  have  elected,  Mr.  Pear- 
son, of  New  York  .     (Applause). 

Mr.  Pearson  took  the  chair. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Governor  Tener,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen: 
I  api)reciate  that  it  is  a  great  honor  to  be  asked  to  preside  over 
3^our  deliberations.  I  accept  the  honor,  and  thank  you  for  it, 
with  appreciation  also  that  it  carries  with  it  great  responsibili- 
ties, for  this  is  an  important  Conference.  It  is  important  be- 
cause of  the  great  commercial  interests  involved,  and  it  is  also  im- 
portant because  of  the  intricate  scientific  questions  that  are 
involved.  That  its  importance  is  well  recognized  could  not  be 
better  shown  than  by  the  fact  that  the  Governor  of  this  great 
Commonwealth  has  called  this  Conference  togetlier,  that  it 
meets  in  these  splendid  quarters,  and  that  this  State  has  taken 
the  lead  in  providing  for  practical,  efficient  work  to  be  done  in 
checking  the  ravages  of  the  chestnut  blight,  through  the  efforts 
of  a  special  Commission,  the  competency  of  the  members  of  which 
is  recognized  not  only  in  your  State,  but  in  many  other  States 
as  well,  where  the  work  which  the}^  have  begun  has  come  to  be 
known. 

Four  months  ago  we  held  in  the  Capital  city  of  New  York, 
a  Conference  of  mucli  smaller  i)r()])orti()ns  than  this,  bnt  called 
together  to  consider  the  same  questions;  and  at  that  time  we 
were  told  that  it  was  the  purpose  of  Governor  Tener  to  call  this 
larger  Conference,  and  w(>  liave  been  looking  forward  to  this  time 
as  an  epoch-making  event. 


20 

It  has  been  suggested  that  we  should  do  nothing  to  counteract 
the  ravages  of  the  chestnut  tree  disease,  because  we  are  not  fully 
informed  as  to  how  to  proceed.  That  is  un-American.  It  is  not 
the  spirit  of  the  Keystone  State,  nor  the  Empire  State,  nor  the 
New  England  States,  nor  the  many  other  great  States  that  are 
represented  here,  to  sit  down  and  do  nothing,  when  catastrophies 
are  upon  us.  It  has  been  suggested  that  we  should  wait  patiently 
until  the  scientists  have  succeeded  in  working  out  these  ques- 
tions in  all  their  minutiae;  that  thus  we  may  be  able  to  accom- 
plish our  results  more  quickly.  But  that  is  not  the  way  that 
great  questions  are  solved.  If  we  had  waited  until  the  appli- 
cation of  steam  should  be  thoroughly  understood,  we  would  be 
still  waiting  for  our  great  trains  and  steamboats,  which  are  the 
marvel  of  the  age.     (Applause). 

We  know  some  things  about  this  curse,  and  we  are  here  to 
exchange  ideas;  to  tell,  on  the  one  hand,  what  we  have  learned 
through  our  scientific  studies,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  what  we 
have  learned  through  our  practical  work;  and  thus  we  believe 
that  at  the  close  of  this  Conference,  we  Avill  all  go  away  from 
here,  wiser  and  better  prepared  to  carry  forward  the  great  work 
in  which  we  are  interested. 

Now  we  are  here  for  business.  The  Governor  has  given  us  the 
keynote  for  the  meeting.  I  should  not  take  your  time  further  in 
making  remarks,  but  let  me  say  to  you  that,  so  far  as  in  me  lies, 
these  meetings  will  be  expedited;  they  will  begin  on  time;  the 
programme  will  go  forward  without  unnecessary  delays;  and  I 
only  ask  that  the  Chair  may  have  the  sympathy  and  the  cordial 
co-operation  of  the  many  delegates  who  are  attending  the  meet- 
ings, to  the  end  that  when  we  close,  we  may  all  feel  that  it  was 
well  that  we  came  together.  Unless  other  arrangements  are 
made,  the  Chair  will  understand  the  usual  rules  of  procedure 
will  govern  our  deliberations,  and  he  will  follow  those  rules  to 
the  best  of  his  ability,  being  always  willing  to  be  corrected  or 
to  l)e  overruled  by  those  who  are  participating  in  the  Conference. 

The  Chair  will  now  recognize  Mr.  Samuel  T.  Bodine,  of  the 
Chestnut  Tree  Blight  Commission. 

MR.  BODINE :  In  order  that  the  deliberations  of  this  Con- 
ference may  be  properly  summed  up,  Mr.  Chairman,  I  move 
that  a  Committee  on  Resolutions  be  appointed  by  the  Chairman 


No.  35.  Distribution  of  tlie  chestuvit  bark  disease.  Horizontal  lines  indicate 
approximate  distribution  of  uninfected  chestnut ;  dots  indicate  isolated  infected 
spots  ;  the  heavier  lines  in  various  directions  indicate  varying  degrees  of  infection 
culminating  in  an  area  about  New  York  City  in  which  all  chestnut  trees  are  dead. 


21 

of  this  Conference,  of  which  he  shall  be  a  member  ex-officio,  which 
Committee  shall  be  representative  of  the  various  States  inter- 
ested in  the  wild  chestnut,  and  represented  at  this  Conference. 
The  motion  was  seconded. 

ME.  S.  M.  ENTERLINE,  of  Pottsville,  Pa:  I  would  further 
add,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  tliese  proceedings  should  be  reported 
and  printed,  if  that  be  possible,  and  forwarded  to  the  delegates, 
as  far  as  the  supply  of  reports  may  reach. 

THE  CHAIRMAN :  That  question  may  come  up  properly  a 
little  later.  The  motion  now  before  you  is  on  the  appointment 
of  a  Committee  on  Resolutions. 

The  motion  was  put  and  unanimously  carried. 

THE  CHAIRMi^N:  The  Chair  will  be  pleased  to  receive,  if 
the  opportunity  offers,  suggestions  from  members  as  to  their  de- 
sires in  this  or  any  other  matter. 

The  programme  now  calls  for  brief  responses  to  the  Governor's 
address,  and  it  has  been  suggested  that  the  best  manner  of  pro- 
cedure will  be  to  call  the  roll  of  States  which  are  represented 
here,  asking  one  person  from  each  State  to  make  a  response; 
and,  in  order  that  we  may  get  through  the  list  promptly,  unless 
directed  otherwise,  the  Chair  will  have  to  ask  each  State  to  limit 
its  response  to  three  minutes.  It  may  be  that  some  of  the  first 
names  on  the  list  are  not  prepared  to  respond  at  once.  In  that 
case  we  Avill  pass  them  over  and  return  to  the  names  a  little  later. 

Alabama.     (No  response). 

Connecticut. 

DR.  GEORGE  P.  CLINTON,  New  Haven,  Conn.,  Expt.  Sta- 
tion :  Mr.  Chairman :  I  hold  a  commission  from  the  Governor  of 
Connecticut  to  represent  that  State,  with  two  other  delegates,  at 
this  Convention.  In  Connecticut  we  have  studied  this  disease 
somewhat  longer  than  you  have  here  in  Pennsylvania,  and  we 
have  it  in  a  very  serious  manner.  I  am  not  officially  on  the  pro- 
gramme, but  I  have  prepared  some  of  my  ideas  and  views  on  this 
subject  which  I  wish,  at  tlie  proper  time,  to  present  to  this  Con- 
vention. I  have  also  a  paper  by  Professor  Farlow,  from  Harvard 
University,  who  has  studied  the  history  of  this  fungus,  that  I 
wish  at  the  proper  time  to  present  to  the  Convention  for  their 


22 

consideration.  I  take  it  tLat  we  want  in  this  Convention,  to 
know  everything  that  is  loiown  concerning  the  chestnut  blight 
and  from  that  to  deduce  our  conclusions.  In  that  respect  I  am 
prepared  to  present  all  that  I  know  and  my  views  on  the  subject, 
in  order  that  the  triith,  if  such  is  known, at  present,  may  come 
out. 

THE  CHAIKMAN:  The  District  of  Columbia.  This  in- 
cludes the  Federal  Department  of  Agriculture.  Is  Professor 
Collins  in  the  room? 

PEOFESSOR  J.  FRANKLIN  COLLINS,  Department  of 
Agriculture,  Washington,  D.  C. :  I  am  not  i^repared  to  make 
any  remarks  for  the  District  of  Columbia.  I  come  from  another 
direction.    I  have  no  remarks  to  make  particularly. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  We  will  give  you  an  opportunity  later, 
Professor  Collins. 

The  Dominion  of  Canada.     (No  response). 
Delaware. 

Dr.  WESLEY  WEBB:  Mr.  Chairman,  Delaware  sends  a 
delegate  up  here  to  learn  the  situation.  Delaware  itself  is  pretty 
thoroughly  infested  with  this  disease.  Every  chestnut  growth 
and  every  forest  has  diseased  trees  in  it.  The  only  way  to  destroy 
the  disease  in  Delaware,  in  my  opinion,  is  to  destroy  every  chest- 
nut tree  and  clean  it  up.  I  doubt  if  any  measures  short  of  that 
would  be  successful;  but  still,  something  may  be  learned  here 
that  will  modify  that  opinion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:    Georgia.     (No  response). 
Illinois.   (No  response). 
Indiana.     (No  response). 
Maryland. 

MR.  J.  B.  S.  NORTON :  Mr.  Chairman,  I  had  supposed  that 
Professor  Patterson  would  speak  for  our  State,  as  he  is  inter- 
ested from  the  forestry  standpoint,  and  I  am  interested  in  the 
Experiment  Station  from  the  nursery  standpoint.  We  will  have 
a  problem  to  meet  in  our  State  in  controlling  this  disease,  and 
I  am  sure  we  are  very  actively  interested  in  this  work,  because 
we  are  in  the  same  condition  as  a  few  other  States.  We  have  a 
large  part  of  our  area  already  infested,  and  a  considerable  part 


23 

of  it  that  is  free,  so  it  makes  it  a  more  active  and  important  qnes- 
tion  to  us  than  to  sections  Avhere  the  territory  is  entirely  covered 
with  the  disease. 

THE  CHAIEMAN :     Massachusetts. 

PKOFESSOE  F.  ^V.  EANE,  State  Forester :  Mr.  Chairman, 
I  was  sent  out  here  by  Governor  Foss.  I  had  an  opportunity 
to  have  a  conference  with  the  Governor  shortly  before  coming. 
We  had  hoped  to  bring  along  some  of  our  large  timber  owners, 
but,  at  the  last  moment,  it  was  imjiossible  to  make  arrangements. 
The  Governor  said  it  would  be  imi^ossible  for  liim  to  be  here,  but 
urged  me  to  extend  his  compliments  to  you  by  all  means.  In 
Massachusetts  we  are  just  beginning  to  realize  that  the  chestnut 
bark  disease  is  a  very  serious  menace  to  us.  During  the  past 
year  we  have  had  a  man  from  the  Department  of  Agriculture 
with  us  for  three  months,  and  I  have  had  all  my  assistants  in  the 
State  Forestry  Department  out  in  the  field  hunting  it  down.  We 
find  that  it  is  scattered  pretty  much  over  the  State.  Our  simple 
remedies  we  send  out  by  men  that  are  with  us,  and  we  are  always 
ready  to  assist  anybody  in  any  part  of  the  State  with  any  sug- 
gestions possible  in  regard  to  it;  but  I  do  not  care  to  talk  about 
that  at  the  present  time.  I  am  here  to  learn  everything  possible, 
and  am  glad  to  be  here,  I  assure  you. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:     New  Jersey. 

DR.  MELVILLE  T.  COOK :  Mr.  Chairman,  in  the  State  of 
New  Jersey  I  find,  although  I  have  been  there  but  a  short  time, 
that  those  who  have  looked  into  the  situation  most  carefully  are 
inclined  to  believe  that,  so  far  as  the  State  is  concerned,  the  situ- 
ation is  practically  hopeless.  Almost  every  chestnut  growth  in 
the  State  is  infected  at  the  present  time.  We  expect,  of  course, 
to  do  some  work  in  combating  the  chestnut  blight,  because  we 
will  not  give  up  until  the  chestnut  timber  is  entirely  destroyed. 
While  the  majority  of  those  who  have  been  making  a  study  of  the 
conditions  over  the  State  look  upon  the  situation  as  hopeless,  yet 
we  can  say  that  there  has  some  good  come  out  of  evil,  because  at 
the  present  time  the  people  are  wike-awake  to  the  importance  of 
the  careful  study  of  plant  diseases.  At  the  present  time  there 
is  no  difficulty,  whatever,  in  getting  the  people  to  listen  to  any 


24 

advice  that  looks  toward  the  protection  of  the  natural  interests 
of  the  State.  So  the  State  of  New  Jersey  greets  the  Convention 
here  to-day  with  honest  hopes  that  something  may  be  accom- 
plished which  will  advance  the  public  interest  and  welfare. 

THE  CHAIEMAN :     New  York. 

GEORGE  G.  ATWOOD:  Mr.  Chairman,  the  State  of  New 
York  appreciated  very  highly  the  honor  extended  by  the  invita- 
tion of  the  Governor  to  be  here  to-day,  so  as  many  as  possible  of 
the  delegation  accepted  with  i3leasure.  We  are  here  to-day  to 
learn  something  in  order  to  perfect  a  plan  that  has  been  brew- 
ing in  New  York  State.  New  York  State  has  a  large  chestnut 
area  to  save.  We  have  a  small  section  of  the  State  where  the 
chestnuts  are  practically  gone.  Arrangements  are  being  per- 
fected for  carrying  on  the  work  under  the  advice  of  the  botanists 
of  our  stations,  and  we  hope  soon  to  have  a  forest  plant  patholo- 
gist, working  either  with  the  Department  of  Agriculture  or  with 
the  Conservation  Commission.  The  Governor  of  the  State  is  very 
much  interested  in  this  proposition.  We  are  waiting  for  some 
definite  plan,  which  will  be  taken  hold  of  as  quickly  as  it  can 
be  devised,  and  as  thoroughly  as  the  necessities  of  the  case  rcr 
quire. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:     North  Carolina.     (No  response). 

Ohio. 

DR.  xVUGUSTINE  D.  SELBY :  Mr.  Chairman,  Ohio  is  very 
much  interested  in  this  Conference,  because  Ohio  lies  in  the 
western  part  of  the  Appalachian  chestnut  belt,  and,  as  State 
Pathologist,  the  problems  of  the  chestnut  bark  disease  would  be- 
come our  laboratory  and  field  problems.  As  yet  we  are  not  aware 
that  the  disease  exists  in  Ohio,  although  it  may  be  so ;  but  we  are 
perfectly  aware  that  our  success  is  indissolubly  bound  up  with 
the  success  of  Pennsylvania  and  the  states  to  the  east  of  it.  If 
Pennsylvania,  either  by  reason  of  a  natural  change  in  conditions 
by  which  the  parasite  Of  this  chestnut  bark  disease  becomes  less 
virulent,  or  by  the  trees  becoming  more  resistant,  is  not  able  to 
save  a  portion  of  its  chestnut  growth,  then  Ohio  will  not  be.  If, 
on  the  other  hand,  Pennsylvania  and  West  Virginia,  as  well  as 
New  York,  are  able  to  save  their  trees  from  the  wrecking  of  this 
disease,  then  Ohio  will  realize  the  advantages  of  such  a  Confer- 


25 

ence  and  such  work.  I  assure  you  that  whatever  efforts  are  made 
by  this  Conference,  or  whatever  conclusions  are  reached  by  this 
Conference  and  whatever  efforts  are  made  by  other  States,  these 
will  be  supplemented  with  vigor  in  our  own  area.  Personally,  of 
course,  we  are  without  experience  in  the  disease.  For  ourselves, 
we  feel  that  we  have  in  the  chestnut  bark  disease  one  of  those 
occasional  and  epoch-making  parasites  which  has  arisen  from  the 
unknown  and  wrought  incredible  damages ;  that  it  will  continue 
its  aggressiveness  through  a  long  period  may  or  may  not  prove 
to  be  true.  If  it  prove  to  be  true,  then  our  difficulties  are  very, 
very  great.  If  the  conditions  prove  more  favorable,  our  forests 
may  be  preserved. 

THE  CHAIRMAN :     Rhode  Island. 

JESSE  B.  MOWRY,  State  Forester:  Mr.  Chairman,  in  be- 
half of  the  State  of  Rhode  Island  and  the  other  delegates  repre- 
senting that  State,  I  desire  to  acknowledge  the  very  cordial  wel- 
come extended  to  us  by  the  Governor  of  Pennsylvania.  Last  sum- 
mer a  systematic  inspection  of  the  State  of  Rhode  Island  was 
made,  under  direction  of  Professor  Collins,  and  this  disease  was 
found  to  exist  in  the  chestnut-growing  portions  of  the  State.  We 
are  very  glad  to  be  here,  to  learn  what  we  can  about  it,  and  to 
profit  by  the  pioneer  work  which  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  is 
doing  in  behalf  not  only  of  its  own  Commonwealth,  but  in  the 
interest  of  all  the  other  States  which  grow  the  wild  chestnut 
tree. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:     Tennessee.     (No  response). 

Vermont.     (No  response). 

Virginia. 

MR.  GEORGE  B.  KEEZELL:  Mr.  Chairman,  on  behalf  of 
the  General  Assembly  of  Virginia,  I  desire  to  return  thanks  to 
the  Executive  of  this  great  Commonwealth  for  the  invitation  to 
be  present  on  this  occasion,  and  to  take  part  in  these  delibera- 
tions. So  far  as  Virginia  is  concerned,  we  are  at  tliis  time  per- 
haps fortunate  in  the  fact  that,  if  we  have  this  dread  disease  with 
us,  we  have  so  far  had  very  little  complaint  of  it.  We  are  not  here 
to  give  any  experience  of  our  own  which  may  be  helpful  to  others, 
but  to  learn  from  others  what  may  be  of  benefit  to  the  whole 


26- 

Commonwealth  of  Virginia.  As  was  suggested  by  the  Governor 
in  his  remarks,  a  great  deal  of  the  wealth  of  the  Commonwealth 
of  Virginia  is  in  our  chestnut  timber  interests.  Within  the  last 
decade  her  chestnut  timber  has  been  the  source  of  a  great  deal  of 
income  to  Virginia,  and  of  a  great  deal  of  wealth.  Its  more  re- 
cent use,  for  tannic  acid,  has  brought  into  great  value  the  waste 
places  of  the  State,  and  timber  heretofore  regarded  as  not  very 
valuable  has  become  one  of  the  most  valuable  assets  of  the  Com- 
monwealth. Naturally,  we  are  very  much  interested  in  anything 
that  goes  toward  the  preservation  of  this  valuable  timber,  and  at 
this  time  we  are  especially  grateful  for  the  invitation  to  be  here, 
because  our  General  Assembly  is  noAV  in  session,  and  bills  have 
already  been  introduced  looking  toward  appropriations  to  com- 
bat this  disease ;  and  we  are  particularly  anxious  to  get  all  the  in- 
formation we  can  here,  in  order  that  we  may  go  back  and  give  our 
legislators  the  necessary  facts.  I  have  no  doubt  provisions  will 
be  made  by  the  Commonwealth  to  fight  the  ravages  of  this  dis- 
ease. 

THE  CHAIRMAN :     West  Virginia. 

DR.  N.  J.  GIDDINGS:  Mr.  Chairman  and  Ladies  and 
Gentlemen:  I  can  assure  you  that  the  people  who  are  most  in- 
terested in  West  Virginia  appreciate  the  opportunity  which  this 
Commonwealth  has  offered  for  meeting  here  and  considering 
matters  in  regard  to  the  chestnut  bark  disease.  The  chestnut  in 
West  Virginia  is  a  very  important  tree.  Just  recently  I  learned 
of  shipments  from  one  station  amounting  to  one  hundred  and 
fifty-five  thousand  pounds  of  chestnuts, — the  wild  nuts, —  during 
last  fall,  and  there  may  be  other  shipments  that  run  as  high, 
or  higher. 

The  annual  cut  of  chestnut  in  West  Virginia  for  the  last  two 
years  has  been  about  one  hundred  and  eighteen  million  feet,  and 
has  neither  increased  or  decreased;  but  the  disease  is  present  in 
the  State.  To  what  extent,  we  do  not  know.  We  are  in  hopes 
to  have  at  least  one  or  two  men  in  the  field  this  spring  to  learn 
more  in  regard  to  the  conditions  in  the  State,  and  we  hope  to  be 
in  a  position,  after  getting  the  details  which  we  may  from  this 
Conference,  to  go  back  and  undertake  the  work  in  a  much  better 
manner  than  we  otherwise  could. 


27 

THE  CHAIRMAN :  For  the  Dominion  of  Canada,  the  Chair 
will  call  on  Dr.  H.  T.  Gussow,  of  Ottawa,  the  Dominion  Botanist. 

DR.  GUSSOW:  Mr.  Chairman:  On  behalf  of  the  Depart- 
ment of  Agriculture  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada,  I  am  here  to 
thank  you  for  your  very  great  courtesy  in  asking  us  to  partici- 
pate in  this  very  important  meeting.  I  may  say  that,  as  far  as 
we  are  concerned  in  Canada,  we  have  not  this  dreaded  disease  at 
the  present  time,  and  we  have  been  very  anxious  to  avoid  the  im- 
portation of  it  across  the  border,  by  passing  stringent  legislative 
measures  prohibiting  the  importation  of  chestnuts  of  any  kind, 
nursery  stock  or  even  chestnut  wood,  or  anything  else  connected 
with  chestnuts.  I  find  that  tliis  will  probably  be  the  only  means 
to  restrict  the  disease  to  the  States  in  which  it  is  found  at  the 
present  moment,  and  I  can  only  extend  to  you,  neighbors  of  the 
United  States,  my  best  wishes  to  succeed  in  combating,  or  at 
least,  restricting  this  very  serious  disease. 

THE  CHAIRMAN :  Are  there  other  States  represented  who 
have  been  passed  over  ?  Are  there  any  States  we  have  not  heard 
from  ? 

_  MR.  J.  W.  FISHER,  of  Tennessee:  Mr.  Chairman,  we  are 
very  greatly  interested  in  this  subject,  because  we  have  such  a 
marvelous  growth  of  chestnut  in  Tennessee.  It  is  receiving  very 
considerable  attention  at  the  present  time  from  the  axemen,  for 
lumber  and  tannic  acid.  It  has  a  vital  connection  with  our  water 
sources,  because  it  covers  the  area  so  completely  that  if  it  were 
destroyed,  it  w^ould  vitally  affect  vast  water  powers  and  irriga- 
tion. We  are  therefore,  extremely  interested  that  you,  in  your 
deliberations,  should  find  some  means  of  checking  this  disease, 
that  we  may  have  our  forests  preserved  to  us.  I  shall  take  a  great 
deal  of  pleasure  in  reporting  whatever  I  can  to  our  Governor, 
Hon.  Benjamin  Hooper,  whom  I  have  known  for  years  and  who 
comes  from  our  town,  so  I  think  I  am  in  an  attitude  to  bring  the 
attention  of  the  State  to  this  matter,  and  I  shall  be  extremely 
glad  to  do  so. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  there  still  other  States  represented, 
who  have  not  been  heard  from?  A  number  of  delegates  are  ex- 
pected in  later  in  the  day.    You  will  all  agree  with  the  Chair 


28 

when  lie  suggests  that  it  is  very  much  like  having  the  play  of 
Hamlet  with  Hamlet  left  out,  when  we  fail  to  hear  from  the  great 
State  of  Pennsylvania;  but,  as  usual,  this  State  asserts  her 
modesty,  and  has  insisted  on  being  excused  for  the  present.  The 
Chair  will  assure  you  that  later  we  will  hear  from  the  State  of 
Pennsylvania,  and  from  more  than  one  person. 

Unless  it  is  otherwise  decided  by  motion  and  vote,  the 
Chair  will  request  that  all  resolutions  be  handed  in  at  the  desk, 
without  taking  the  time  of  the  Conference  to  read  them,  to  be 
referred  directly  to  the  Committee  on  Resolutions.  This,  how- 
ever, may  be  overruled  if  the  delegates  desire  to  take  the  matter 
into  their  own  hands. 

I  am  informed  that  provision  has  been  made  for  registration 
at  one  of  the  ante-rooms  outside  of  the  entrance  to  this  chamber, 
and  each  one  is  earnestly  requested  to  register  his  name,  home  ad- 
dress, official  position,  and  his  temporary  Harrisburg  address. 

The  program  now  calls  for  an  address  upon  the  "Historical 
Review  and  the  Pathological  Aspects  of  the  Chestnut  Bark  Dis- 
ease," by  Dr.  Haven  Metcalf,  of  the  United  States  Department 
of  Agriculture.  It  is  with  the  greatest  regret  that  we  have 
learned  of  the  serious  illness  of  Dr.  Metcalf,  which  makes  it  im- 
possible for  him  to  be  present  at  this  time.  Fortunately,  however, 
we  have  with  us  Professor  J.  Franklin  Collins,  the  Assistant 
Pathologist  in  the  Federal  Department  of  Agriculture,  and  Pro- 
fessor Collins  has  kindly  consented  to  address  us  at  this  time. 


ADDRESS  OF  PROFESSOR  J.  FRANKLIN  COLLINS,  OF 
THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  AGRICULTURE,  WASH- 
INGTON, D.  0. 


Mr.  Chairman,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen:  It  is  with  very  great 
regret,  for  many  reasons,  as  you  can  imagine,  that  I  have  to  take 
Dr.  Metcalf's  place  here.  I  came  here  rather  unprepared  to 
take  his  place.  The  accident  to  Dr.  Metcalf  occurred  on  Satur- 
day night,  and  I  had  the  chance  to  see  him  only  a  little  while  on 


No.  1.     Branch  of  a  chestnut  tree  showing  a  disease  lesion  on  smooth  bark. 


No.  2.     Portion  of  a  branch  of  chestnut  tree,   exhibiting  a  lesion  started  aroundi 
dead  stub,   the  pustules  being  especially  prominent. 


29 

Sunday.  I  have  come  here  without  mauy  of  his  ideas.  However, 
he  has  some  slides  which  are  to  be  shown,  and  perhaps  I  can 
tell  you  something  about  those,  and  so  add  to  their  interest. 

Before  the  slides  are  shown,  I  want,  very  briefly,  to  give  a  short 
sketch  of  the  history  of  this  disease.  It  will  be  very  brief,  and 
of  a  general  nature  only.  The  history  of  the  disease  has  already 
been  published  in  quite  a  number  of  cases,  so  I  will  touch  only 
upon  the  main  points. 

Our  attention  was  first  called  to  this  disease,  I  believe,  in  the 
fall  of  1904  by  Dr.  Merkel,  of  the  Bronx  Zoological  Park,  in  New 
York  city.  He  noticed  that  chestnut  trees  were  dying  in  greater 
numbers  than  seemed  to  be  warranted  by  any  previous  knowledge 
of  the  dying  of  chestnuts.  He  looked  the  matter  carefully  over, 
as  I  understand  it,  and  decided  that  there  was  a  definite  disease 
there,  and  later  turned  the  material  over  to  Dr.  Murrill,  of  the 
New  York  Botanical  Gardens.  Dr.  Murrill  studied  this  disease 
and  later  i)ublished  his  findings  upon  it,  naming  the  fungus  which 
caused  the  trouble,  Dia/porthe  'parasitica,  a  new  species  of  the 
genus.  At  that  time,  I  believe,  Dr.  Murrill  stated  that  it  was  a 
very  serious  disease,  and  sent  out  a  Avarning  to  that  effect.  If 
1  am  misquoting  him,  I  hope  he  will  correct  me,  for  he  is  in  this 
room  to-day.  It  was  not  until  1907,  three  years  after  the  dis- 
covery of  this  disease,  that  a  laboratory  was  established  in  Wash- 
ington for  the  study  of  tree  diseases.  Since  that  time — almost 
immediately  and  since  then — certain  investigations,  both  in  the 
laboratory  and  in  the  field,  have  been  carried  on  in  Washington. 
I  do  not  propose  to  say  anything  about  these  studies  at  the  pres- 
ent time.  My  point  here  is  to  give  you  a  general  idea  of  the 
disease,  what  it  looks  like,  how  it  affects  a  tree,  and  things  of 
that  sort, — a  general  discussion  of  the  topic.  This  review  will 
be,  will  necessarily  liave  to  be,  primarily  an  explanation  of  the 
views  which  will  be  thrown  on  the  screen.  I  may  elaborate  at 
points,  but,  as  I  say,  I  am  not  primed  as  Dr.  Metcalf  would  have 
been  had  lie  been  able  to  be  here.  I  think  perhaps  we  may  as  Avell 
proceed  to  tlu;  views  at  once. 

Slide  No.  1.  This,  to  begin  with,  shows  a  diseased  spot,  as 
we  will  find  it  on  the  smooth  bark  of  a  branch  of  a  cliestnut  tree, 
a  branch  which  is  perhaps  anywhere  from  three  to  six  inches 
in  diameter.     The  disease  is  a  fungous  disease,  and  starts  its 


30 

growtli  from  a  very  miscroscopic,  one-celled  body,  which  we  know 
as  a  si^ore.  By  some  means  the  spore  reaches  a  place  in  the 
bark  of  the  chestnut,  where  conditions  are  favorable  for  its 
growth.  Its  growth  is  not  essentially  different  from  that  of  the 
spores  of  other  fungi.  It  consists  mainly,  or  principally,  of  a 
threadlike  growth  coming  from  the  spore.  This  threadlike  growth 
branches,  and  finally  we  have  a  great  mass  of  threadlike  fila- 
ments. In  the  case  of  the  chestnut  disease,  the  spore  may  gain 
entrance  at  some  point,  say  here,  or  some  little  break  here,  pos- 
sibly (indicating  on  slide),  and  perhaps  occasionally  without  any 
break  at  all  in  the  bark.  The  growth  in  the  bark  continues  to  in- 
crease in  size,  that  is,  the  general  area  of  the  growth,  and  sooner 
or  later,  the  same  as  in  practically  all  plants,  we  have  a  fruiting 
stage  of  this  fungus.  This  view  shows  some  of  these  fruiting 
stages,  as  we  ordinarily  see  them  on  the  chestnut.  Some  of  the 
stages,  which  are  not  quite  so  common,  will  be  shown  a  little 
later;  but  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that,  from  this 
point  to  the  j)oint  away  over  there  (indicating)  we  have  an  area 
of  disease.  As  a  rule  the  bark  in  the  smooth-barked  limbs  is 
somewhat  sunken,  where  the  limbs  are  two  or  more  inches  in  di- 
ameter. Where  they  are  below  that  diameter,  the  diseased  area 
may  be  an  enlargement  rather  than  a  depression  in  the  bark. 
These  little  yellowish  spots  which  you  see  all  over  here,  many  of 
them,  are  smaller  than  the  head  of  a  pin.  They  are  of  various 
colors,  but  usually  some  tint  of  yellowish  brown  or  orange,  or 
sometimes  they  weather  to  a  darker  color.  Those  pustules  are 
what  we  know  as  the  fruiting  pustules  of  this  fungus.  These 
pustules,  during  the  growing  season,  in  the  summer  as  a  rule, 
produce  a  certain  type  of  spore,  and  later  in  the  season,  or  at  a 
later  stage  in  the  age  of  the  disease,  at  least  another  type  of 
spore.  For  convenience  we  will  speak  of  the  first  type  as  the 
summer  spores  and  those  of  the  later  stage  as  the  winter  spores. 
No.  2.  This  shows  a  similar  branch  with  a  lesion,  which  has 
started  evidently  from  around  this  old  dead  stub,  and  this  has 
spread  until  we  get  the  diseased  area  from  this  point,  from  liere 
probably,  (indicating)  up  to  the  top  of  the  picture.  Now  dur- 
ing the  summer,  or  rather  after  a  rainy  spell  which  is  followed 
by  a  dry  spell,  perhaps  two  days  or  one  day  o'^  three  days  after 
the  rain  has  ceased,  we  shall  find  that  these  pustules,  or  fruiting 


No.  4.     Surface  section  of  chestnut  bark,   with  pustules  in  the  crevices. 
Lower    illustration    shows    pustule    greatly    enlarged,     from    which    three    spore 
threads  have  been  produced. 


31 

spots,  have  pushed  out  a  little  mass,  a  threadlike  mass,  in  much 
the  same  way  as  you  would  press  out  the  paste  from  a  collapsible 
tube  by  pinching  the  tube.  As  a  result  we  get,  perhaps,  from 
one  of  these  pustules,  anywhere  from  one  to  fifteen  or  twenty 
structures  of  that  sort,  (indicating)  which  are,  of  course,  here 
greatly  magnified.  This  represents  the  pustule  at  the  base,  this 
yellow  area;  and  this  is  one  of  the  threadlike  masses  which  has 
been  forced  out  by  the  swelling  of  the  mucilaginous  matter  in 
the  pustule. 

No.  3.  Each  one  of  those  masses  shown  at  the  right  hand  side 
of  the  view  is  composed  of  many  hundreds  of  thousands  of  spores, - 
no  larger  than  bacteria.  One  of  these  spores  may,  so  far  as  we 
know,  under  favorable  conditions,  reproduce  this  fungus  and  con- 
sequently reproduce  the  disease,  if  it  starts  growth  in  the  proper 
place. 

No.  4.  This  shoAvs  simply  a  somewhat  larger  view  of  one  of 
those  pustules,  from  which  three  of  those  spore  threads  have 
been  produced.  At  the  upper  part  of  this  picture  we  have  a  sur- 
face view  of  the  chestnut  bark  in  which  we  find  the  pustules 
gathered  in  the  crevices.  This  is  rather  characteristic  on  chest- 
nut bark  that  is  of  a  sufficient  age  to  be  cracked.  Only  on  smooth 
chestnut  bark,  as  a  rule,  do  we  find  these  pustules  all  over  the 
bark.  In  the  cracked  bark  we  find  them  primarily,  if  not  entirely, 
in  the  crevices. 

-  No.  5.  There  we  have  a  section  of  a  small  branch  that  shows 
some  of  these  pustules,  and  above  some  of  these  threads  as  they 
appear  on  the  bark  of  the  cliestnut.  I  have  nothing  special  to 
say  about  that  view,  except  that,  so  far  as  the  color  is  concerned, 
we  are  apt  to  get  it  just  that  color,  but  quite  as  often  somewhat 
darker,  with  a  little  orange  or  reddish  tint  to  the  pustule. 

No.  6.  Now  if  we  take  one  of  those  areas  of  disease  on  smooth 
bark  and  cut  into  it,  if  we  shave  the  top  of  the  bark  off  with  a 
sharp  knife, — suppose  we  take  just  such  a  case  as  we  have  at  the 
left  here  (in  fact  this  is  made  from  the  same  branch)  and  shave 
it  so  as  to  show  what  is  beneath,^ — we  get  a  discolored  area,  a 
ratlier  characteristic  area,  wliich  is  not  slioAvn  as  Avell  in  this 
view  as  it  will  be  in  another;  but  remember  that  this  view  at  tlie 
right  represents  such  a  branch  as  that  at  the  left,  with  the  sur- 
face of  the  bark  removed  with  the  knife. 


32 

No.  7.  Here  is  a  vieAV  Avhich  represents  a  brancli,  from  which 
the  surface  of  the  bark  has  been  shaved  in  the  same  manner  as 
in  the  last  view,  bnt  here  we  have  the  characteristic  fanlike  mott- 
ling, which  we  often  get  in  the  bark  beneath  the  surface.  Some 
times  the  effect  which  you  see  here  is  produced  immediately  be- 
neath the  surface  of  the  bark,  at  other  times  down  in  the  middle 
of  the  bark,  and  at  other  times  you  have  to  get  in  pretty  well  to- 
wards the  wood  in  order  to  find  this  characteristic  marking,  de- 
pending largely  upon  w^hether  there  is  a  perfect  epidermis,  or 
perfect  skin,  over  the  bark,  or  whether  there  is  a  corky  layer; 
but  it  is  not  entirely  gauged  by  those  characters.  This  line  (in- 
dicating) representing  the  line  of  discoloration;  the  infection 
started  at  this  point  and  radiated  in  all  directions  from  the  com- 
mon starting  point.  Of  course,  if  we  shaved  off  the  other  side 
of  that  branch,  we  should  have  expected  to  find  about  the  same 
condition  of  affairs  there;  but  here  we  have  shown  only  the  half 
circle  of  the  more  or  less  circular  area  of  the  disease. 

No.  8,  Here  are  two  branches  of  a  chestnut  tree,  an  orchard 
tree  as  I  recall  it.  These  branches  are  about  four  or  five  inches 
in  diameter.  This  represents  a  very  common  appearance  on 
chestnut  in  the  smooth-bark  stage.  Of  course,  this  has  begun  to 
crack  more  or  less  from  age.  That  is  not  an  exceptional  case  by 
any  means,  as  all  who  have  seen  the  disease  will  readily  realize. 

No.  9.  This  represents  another  case  of  a  diseased  portion,  in 
which  the  disease  started  about  at  this  point  (indicating).  One 
of  these  cracks  probably  represents  the  position  of  the  starting 
point  of  the  disease,  and  it  lias  radiated  in  all  directions,  tending 
to  form  the  circular  mass  wliicli  is  sho1\'n  here,  running  down 
there  and  across  tlie  bottom  and  of  course  off  of  the  view  entirely 
at  the  right.  That  is  a  grafted  tree,  by  tlie  way,  and  the  enlarged 
portion  at  the  middle  of  the  tree  represents  the  graft  line. 

No.  10.  This  is  merely  a  section  of  a  little  older  piece  of  bark, 
where  we  get  the  pustules  of  a  darker  color,  that  is,  more  of  the 
brownish  tinge,  as  we  often  dQ  in  Aveathered  bark.  This,  as  I 
said  a  moment  ago,  is  found  in  material  which  has  withstood  the 
weather  for  some  time. 

No.  11.  This  is  another  view  which  shows  merely  some  of 
the  older  ]3ustules.  This  is  intended  more  to  represent  the  winter 
stage  of  the  fungus.     I  do  not  think,  however,  that  you  will  be 


No.  6.  Sections  of  smooth-ba)kecl  chestnut  twigs  showing  disease  lesions._  Sur- 
face of  bark  removed  from  right-hand  specimen,  showing  discolored  and  diseased 
areas. 


No.  7. 


Characteristic  fan-like  mottling  revealed  hy  shavins:  the  bark  of  a  diseased 

branch. 


No.  S. 


A  large  area  of  disease  pustules  on  a  smooth-barked  orchard  tree.- 
(jraijJi   by  Prof.   Collins. 


-Photo- 


No.  9. 


x>^.  ^.  Bark  removed  from  over  a  canker,  showing  the  cracks  at  the  centre  and 
the  fan-shaped  spread  of  the  yellowish  fungous  mycelium;  also,  at  the  lower  edge, 
the  circular  margin  of  the  disease. — Pliotograpli  hy  Prof.   Collins. 


No.  10.     Bark  shewing-  pustules  of  a  dark  color  or  of  a  brownish  tint,   due  to  lons'er 
exposure  to  weather. — Photograph   by  Prof.   Collins. 


-•  ^-^m  .xa»i.,;' 


No.  12.     Diseased  ches'nut  tree  sl'owiii';-  shredded  Irirk  after  two  or  three  years  in- 
fection.— /'liotofjrapJi   hij  Prof.  Collins. 


No.  13.     Small  twig  of  chestnut  with  enlargement  due  to  disease.     At  the  left  side 
the  normal  size  of  the  twig  is  shown. 


No.    15.     Normal    chestnut    leaf.     A    pale    green   in    the   margin   is   one    cf    the    first 
symptoms  of  discoloration  and  disease. 


No.  IG.  A  green-house  cliestnut  tree  in  pot,   three  mciitlis  after  artificial  iiioculatiou 
with   summer  spores.     Photograph    by   Brvirir. 


No.  17.     Early  effect  of  the  disease  upon  young  chestnut  sprouts  and  nursery  stock. 


No.    IS.     Characteristic    withered    and    .v?l]owish    leaves    on    chestnut    twig    infected 

with  the  disease. 


No.    19.     Leaves    of    the    chestnut   exhibiting    discolorations    and    curling   of    leaves 

caused  by  the  disease. 


No.  20.     Curled  and  discolored  leaves  of  the  chestnut  at  an  advanced  stage  of  the 

disease. 


No.  21.     Leaves  of  the  chestnut ,    showing'  1)rownish   tint  from  eft'ect  of  girdling-  by 

the  disease. 


No.  22.     Types  of  oi-namental  chestnut  trees  killed  by  thousands.     Note  the  small, 
diseased  branches.     Scene  near  Philadelphia,  Pa. — Photograph  hij  Prof.  Collins. 


No.  23.     Very  early  stage;  infection  of  twigs  in  top  of  trees,  at  upper  right- 
hand  side.     Lancaster  county,  Penna. — Fliotogt  aph  by  Prof.  Collins. 


No.    24.     Type    of    diseased    chestnut    tree    on    Long    Island,     New    York,    showing 
characteristic    sprouts. — Photograph    hy    Prof.    Col" 


No.  25.  Tree  nearly  dead  from  the  disease.  Only  the  two  lower  left-hand 
branches  remain  alive.  Scene  near  Cold  Spring,  New  York. — Photograph  by  Prof. 
Collins. 


No.  26.     Chestnut  trees  on  Long  Island,    New   York,    showing  the  effect  of  the 
girdling  of  the  tree  by   the  chestnut  bark  disease. — Photograph   hy  Prof.   Collins. 


1 

• 

i 

W 

^^A-^'                 t 

u^ 

c:''' 

X 

^' 

y 

\  ■ 

"- 

\ 

'^SS^SkS^t    ^ 

\ 

wf^ 

^ 

iM^ 

^l^j 

Jm^ 

1 

vf^'^'h 

^ 

1 

ll 

No.   27.     A   chestnut   tree   on   Long   Island,    New   York,    with    sprouts   at   various 
points  on  the  trunk. — Photograph   lij  Prof.  Collins. 


No.  2.8.     The  chestnut   tree  in  the  centre  of  the  picture  shows  four  well-developed 
lesions. — Photogniph    by    Prof.    Collins. 


No.  29.  Typical  group  of  dead  chestnut  trees.  Note  dead  suckers  on  the  trunks. 
From  left  to  right: — the  first  trunk  shows  the  disease  less  than  one  year  old, 
(nothnig  evident  in  this  pliologi'aph)  ;  the  second,  an  infection  of  from  two  to  three 
years  old  ;  the  third  four  or  more  years  old  ;  and  the  fourth  ahout  three  years  old. 
Scene  near  Brooklyn,   New  York. — f'hofof/raph  hy  Prof.  Collins. 


No.  30.'  Dead  chestnut  trees  along  a  boulevard  near  Richmond  Hill,   Xew  York. 
Note  healthy   condition   of  trees   of   other  species. — Photograph   hy  Prof.    Collins. 


No.  31.    Dead   and  dying  sprout  growth.     Note  healthj'  condition  of  trees  of  other 
species.     Scene  at  Port  Jefferson,    New  York.     Photograph  by  Prof.   Collins. 


No.  32.     The  most  southern  point  of  infection — a  group  of  diseased  chestnut  trees 
at  Fontella,    Bedford  county,   Virginia. — Photograph  iy  Prof.  Collins. 


laiul.      ^Nlanv 


>vo.  o3.     Complete  destruction   of  chestnut   trees   in   a    nearlv   imr(    ..^,,„, 

of   the   trunks   have   lost   their   barl?.     View   in   Forest   Tark,    near    Brooklyn,    New 
lork. — Photograph   hy  Prof.   Collins. 


No.  34.  Complete  destruction  of  chestnut  trees  in  a  nearly  pure  stand.  Many 
of  the  trunks  have  lost  their  bark.  Scene  in  Forest  Park,  near  Brooklyn,  New 
York. — Photograph  ty  Prof.  Collins. 


able  to  make  out  the  individual  little  spots  wliicli  go  to  make 
up  one  of  these  common  masses.  The  Avinter  stage  of  this  dis- 
ease produces  its  spores  down  in  the  bark ;  that  is,  down  beneath 
the  surface  of  the  bark,  and  so  also  does  the  summer  spore  stage, 
except  that  in  the  summer  spore  stage  they  are  extruded  in  the 
form  of  these  threads,  while  the  winter  spores  are  not  extruded  in 
the  same  waj^,  although  they  are  extruded  later. 

No.  12.  This  view  represents  a  diseased  spot  on  an  orchard 
tree.  The  diseased  spot  is  less  than  three  years  old,  but  more 
than  two  years  old,  according  to  the  records  which  were  kept. 
This  shows,  at  the  upper  part  of  the  picture,  how  the  bark  soon 
loosens  and  later  falls  from  the  tree  and  the  branches,  until 
finally  we  have  simply  the  bare  trunk  or  a  bare  branch  left. 
Sometimes  this  bark  breaks  away  in  less  than  two  years,  to  much 
the  extent  that  is  shown  there. 

No.  13.  Here  is  a  small  twig  of  a  chestnut.  A  little  while  ago 
I  mentioned  the  fact  that,  in  tlie  smaller  twigs,  we  sometimes 
had  an  enlargement  wlieii  the  disease  was  present,  rather  than  a 
depression.  Here  at  the  left  we  get  the  normal  size  of  the  twig, 
and  then,  running  out  this  way  towards  the  apex  of  the  branch, 
we  see  where  the  disease  started,  and  we  have  this  considerable 
swelling.  This  is  quite  characteristic,  under  certain  conditions, 
of  twigs  Avhich  are  less  tlmn  a  half  inch  in  diameter.  It  some- 
times occurs  in  larger  branches,  but  as  a  rule  Ave  get  it  quite  com- 
monly in  this  type  of  branch. 

No.  14.  In  the  older  trees,  where  the  bark  has  become  deeply 
furrowed,  I  said  that  Ave  found  the  diseased  pustules  almost  en- 
tirely in  the  cracks  or  crevices  of  the  bark.  This  represents  the 
surface, — greatly  magnified,  of  course,  and  beyond  what  you 
might  imagine, — and  some  of  the  furroAvs.  We  get  the  yellowish- 
orange  pustules  in  the  crevices  there,  and  in  various  places, 
AA^hereas  the  other  parts,  the  raised  places,  show  no  pustules  at 
all. 

No.  15.  So  much  for  the  disease  as  it  appears  on  the  branches. 
Now  when  the  disease  appears  on  a  branch,  or  on  the  trunk  of  a 
tree,  it  starts  from  the  common  point  and  radiates  in  all  direc- 
tions, forming  the  more  or  less  circular  area  of  disease.  Of 
course,  on  the  trunk  of  a  tree  it  goes  up  the  trunk  from  the  com- 

3 


34 

moil  point,  down  the  trnnk,  and  around  the  trunk.  When 
these  portions  of  the  disease  which  go  around  the  trunk  meet  on 
the  other  side,  we  have  a  brancli  or  a  trunk  Avliich  we  speak  of  as 
girdled.  Now  a  girdled  branch,  or  a  girdled  twig,  or  a  girdled 
trunk,  means  the  early  death  of  all  parts  of  the  tree  beyond  the 
girdled  area.  If  it  is  a  twig,  it  means  the  death  of  the  twig  be- 
yond the  girdled  area.  If  it  is  the  trnnk,  it  means  the  death  of 
the  whole  tree  at  once,  or  soon  after  the  girdling  is  completed; 
not  immediately,  as  a  rule.  Now  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to 
some  of  the  obvious  effects  of  this  girdling  upon  the  foliage  of 
the  tree.  When  you  are  looking  for  this  disease  during  the  sea- 
son of  foliage,  it  can  be  detected  oftentimes  at  a  great  distance. 
I  have  myself  detected  diseased  trees  more  than  a  mile  away,  or 
trees  supposed  to  be  diseased,  by  the  characteristics  which  I  WAut 
to  call  your  attention  to  now.  To  be  sure,  you  must  bear  in  mind 
that  the  coloration  of  the  leaves  to  which  I  am  going  to  call  your 
attention  can  at  times  be  brought  about  by  other  things  than  this 
disease;  but  we  have  in  the  coloration  of  the  leaves,  as  we  gener- 
ally say,  the  '^danger  signaT'  Avliich  suggests  where  to  look  for  the 
disease;  for,  if  the  disease  has  been  going  on  \ery  long,  for  a  fcAv 
months,  or  weeks  even,  in  certain  places,  we  shall  get  some  of 
these  discolored  leaves  as  the  result  of  the  girdling  of  some  one 
or  more  of  the  twigs  or  branches.  I  have  shown  here  a  somewhat 
normal  chestnut  leaf.  It  is  a  little  broader  than  the  normal  leaf; 
this  is  intended  to  represent  not,  perhaps,  a  perfectly  typical 
chestnut  leaf,  because  we  have  on  the  margin  a  little  paler  green 
tljan  in  the  portion  in  the  centre.  The  pale  green  in  the  margin 
of  every  leaf  at  times,  is  one  of  the  first  symptoms  of  discolora- 
tion. It  becomes  a  little  pale.  First  of  all,  perhaps,  the  leaf 
wilts  a  little,  if  you  notice  it  carefully,  and  if  this  paleness  of  the 
leaves  is  extended  over  the  leaves  of  a  whole  branch,  the  effect  as 
a  whole  is  quite  noticeable. 

No.  16.  Here  is  a  greenhouse  plant  which  has  been  inoculated 
with  the  disease.  At  the  left  we  find  some  of  the  normal  chest- 
nut leaves;  at  the  right  a  branch  which  had  been  inoculated  and 
has  been  girdled  way  down  here.  (Indicating),  Now  I  do  not 
know  about  that  particular  specimen,  but,  if  we  were  looking  for 
the  disease  on  such  a  specimen  as  that,  we  should  never  look  up 
here  for  it,  that  is,  not  primarily.    What  is  causing  the  trouble 


35 

with  that  stem  is  down  here  somewhere,  doAVii  below  all  these 
dead  leaves.  That  applies  to  looking  for  the  disease  on  the  tree, 
or  on  the  sprouts  or  snckers  which  may  come  up  from  the  base 
of  a  tree. 

No.  17.  In  very  young  nursery  stock,  or  the  young  sprouts 
which  come  up  from  a  tree,  or  the  vigorous  growth  on  a  tree,  on 
the  twigs  at  least,  we  often  get  this  type  of  the  disease  at  its  very 
beginning.  This  is  often  more  brilliantly  colored  than  shown  in 
this  view.  It  is  very  conspicuous  indeed,  particularly  on  nursery 
stock.  Although  the  view  does  not  show  any  fruiting  pustules 
at  all,  by  cutting  into  that  area  we  get  the  characteristic  mottled 
mycelium  or  vegetative  stage  of  the  fungus  beneath  the  bark. 

No.  18.  Now  we  have  a  branch  which  shows  the  withered  and 
yellowish  leaves.  This  yellow  color  follows  along  after  the  pale 
green  color.  It  is  not  a  pure  yellow,  as  a  rule,  although  some- 
times it  has  been  quite  strikingly  of  a  pure  j^ellow  color.  You 
will  notice  that  the  leaves  wither  after  awhile;  that  is,  they 
crumi)le  up  after  a  time  and  that  crumpling  is  shown,  to  a  certain 
extent,  in  this  view;  and  also  the  yelloAV  color. 

No.  19.  A  little  later  we  have  the  deeper  color.  This  shows 
the  browner  coloration  around  the  margin  of  the  leaves.  At  the 
left  we  have  two  leaves  which  show  merely  the  beginning  of  the 
discoloration.  At  the  right  the  leaf  is  somewhat  crumpled,  bent, 
and  discolored. 

No.  20,  This  is  a  stage  much  the  same  as  that  of  the  little 
branch  wliich  was  shown  three  views  back,  this  shoAving  a  larger 
view  of  the  same  thing. 

No.  21.  Finally  the  leaf  assumes  a  somewliat  l)rownish  tint, 
which  is  shown  here.  The  leaves  in  this  condition  are  often  more 
crumpled  and  curled  up  than  shown  here.  These  two  leaves  have 
been  flattened  out  somewhat  so  as  to  show  the  color. 

No.  22.  Now  to  take  some  of  the  woodland  views,  to  show 
how  the  disease  looks  in  the  landscape.  Here  is  a  large  tree 
Avhich,  owing  to  lack  of  special  instruction  as  to  the  coloring  of 
it,  lacks  one  or  two  features  which  it  ought  to  have.  For  instance, 
this  branch  up  here,  and  that  wliole  branch  (indicating),  ought 
to  have  shown  the  yellow  brown  color.  The  coloring,  however, 
was  not  noticed  in  time  to  give  instructions  in  regard  to  it.  This 
view,  however,  is  shown  primarily  to  represent  the  type  of  tree 


36 

wliicli  is  so  valuable  in  the  large  estates  in  tlie  various  States. 
This  particular  tree  bad  a  circumference,  above  the  settee  which 
is  there,  of  more  than  nineteen  feet.  The  view  Avas  taken  three 
years  ago.  That  tree  now  has  only  two  or  three  of  the  green 
branches  left  and  the  whole  top  of  the  tree  is  cut  off.  I  am  sorry 
I  do  not  have  the  other  views  to  go  with  this,  but  through  some 
slip  somewhere  the^^  were  not  forwarded  to  be  shown. 

No.  23.  Now  we  have  a  view  in  which  the  disease  has  a  start 
up  in  this  corner,  and  the  discoloration  of  the  leaves,  or  the 
masses  of  leaves,  is  here  shown.  Now  a  discoloration  of  this  sort, 
particularly  when  it  comes  to  a  little  later  stage  and  has  a  more 
brilliant  color,  is  quite  conspicuous  in  the  landscape.  This  view 
does  not  do  credit  by  any  means  to  the  i^oint  which  is  intended  to 
be  brougJit  out  here. 

No.  24.  Here  is  a  view  taken  on  Long  Island,  which  shows 
the  effect  on  the  tree;  a  tree  which  has  been  nearly  killed  by  the 
disease,  showing  the  practically  defoliated  type  of  tree.  Here 
is  another  type,  (indicating),  which  has  become  badly  diseased, 
and  we  have  a  buncli  of  si)routs  appearing  at  this  point,  also  here, 
and  also  basal  sprouts  coming  up.  These  sprouts  are  rather  char- 
acteristic; perhaps  I  should  not  say  characteristic,  but  they  are 
commonly  found  connected  with  this  disease,  and  are  supposed 
to  be  more  or  less  characteristic  of  the  disease,  but  the  sprouts 
can  be  produced  b}^  other  means  than  as  a  result  of  the  disease. 

No.  25.  Another  tree,  also  on  Long  Island,  in  which  all  but 
two  of  the  lower  limbs  on  the  left  hand  side  have  been  killed  by 
girdling  from  the  disease,  and  now  we  have  remaining  only  those 
two,  or  perhaps  three,  lower  left  hand  limbs. 

No.  26.  This  is  a  tree  showing  the  sprout  growth  which  I 
alluded  to  in  one  of  the  last  pictures,  to  even  better  advantage. 
Notice  the  sprouts  which  come  up  around  the  base,  and  the 
sprouts  which  come  from  the  trunk  at  various  places  up  in  the 
crown. 

No.  27.  There  you  have  another  type  of  the  same  thing,  a  more 
pronounced  example,  in  which  the  sprouts  are  confined  almost 
entirely  to  the  trunk  of  the  tree  and  everything  is  dead  or  dying, 
except  perhaps  one  or  two  branches. 

No.  28.  This  view  is  shown  in  order  to  call  to  your  attention 
this  particular  tree  (indicating),  which  shows  four  good  lesions 


37 

of  the  disease,  diseased  spots,  on  the  trunli  of  the  tree.  That  is 
the  way  the  tree  looks  when  this  disease  attacks  the  trunk.  That 
tree  is  practically  dead.  The  lower  part,  represented  by  the 
lower  half  of  that  picture,  shows  some  life. 

No.  29.  In  the  course  of  two  or  three  years  we  find  that  the 
bark  begins  to  peel  from  the  trunks  of  the  trees.  At  the  left  Ave 
have  a  tree  which  has  only  recently  been  killed,  that  is,  within 
a  3^ear  or  so  perhaps,  and  the  next  one  to  it  is  one  which  is  a  little 
older,  and  the  bark  has  begun  to  peel  olf.  The  one  which  is  so 
prominent  is  probably  the  first  in  the  group  which  was  attacked 
and  killed,  and  the  bark  has  practically  disappeared  from  the 
tree,  so  far  as  this  view  shows. 

No.  30.  Now  to  consider  the  more  general  appearance  of  the 
woodland,  here  is  a  view  taken  in  Forest  Park,  Brooklyn,  along 
the  Boulevard.  This  is  one  of  the  main  boulevards  through  the 
Park,  and  any  of  you  Avill  have  no  difficulty  in  picking  out  the 
chestnuts.  They  are  the  most  conspicuous  objects.  Not  one  of 
the  green  trees  you  see  there  is  a  chestnut. 

No.  31.  Here  is  another  view  taken,  I  think,  at  Port  Jeffer- 
son on  Long  Island.  It  may  have  been  a  New  Jersey  view;  I 
am  a  little  uncertain  as  to  just  where  it  was  taken.  That  shows 
the  young  growth  coming  up  and  becoming  diseased,  and  shows 
the  effect  along  the  hedgerow  that  we  get  from  this  disease. 

No.  32.  This  is  one  of  the  most  southern  stations  wliich  we 
know  for  the  disease.  This  view  was  taken  in  South-western  Vir- 
ginia, in  Bedford  county.  The  more  prominent  trees  there  have 
lost  the  bark  entirely.  Those  trees,  I  understand,  have  been  cut 
out  and  no  longer  exist. 

No.  33.  If  you  want  to  see  wliat  the  chestnut  disease  can  do 
in  a  very  nearly  pure  stand  of  chestnuts,  there  is  a  view  which 
will  show  it.  That  was  taken  in  Forest  Park  on  Long  Island. 
Any  of  you  wlio  liave  been  in  Forest  Park  will  prol)ably  recognize 
that  view. 

No.  34.  The  next  view,  I  think,  is  another  view  of  a  little 
diiferent  portion  of  tlie  same  Park.  These  trees  at  the  right  are 
not  chestnuts  at  all.  This  one  up  here,  I  believe,  is  a  chestnut 
and  there  are  some  oaks  there  at  the  left. 

No.  35.  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  the  distribntioii  of  the 
chestnut,  and,  to  do  so,  I  want  to  call  ,yonr  attention  lo  this  map. 


38 

This  map"  represents  the  eastern  portion  of  the  United  States 
and  the  horizontal  lines  represent  the  approximate  general  dis- 
tribution of  the  chestnut  tree.  It  may  not  be  exact.  I  think  most 
any  of  you  who  live  at  or  near  the  border  line  represented  here 
would  have  some  suggestions  to  offer,  but  the  map  has  been  com- 
piled from  as  reliable  general  sources  as  we  could  obtain.  Thus 
we  have  the  chestnut  from  northern  Mississippi,  through 
northern  Alabama  and  Georgia,  northwestern  South  Carolina, 
western  North  Carolina,  u\)  through  this  region  and  up  into  the 
northwestern  edge  of  Androscoggin  county  in  Maine.  In  New 
Hampsliire  and  Vermont  there  are  only  a  few  chestnuts  present, 
as  compared  with  the  region  farther  south.  Down  through  here 
(pointing  to  the  southern  Alleglianies),  we  have  our  great  chest- 
nut stand,  particularly  on  the  western  slope  of  the  mountains. 
In  the  State  of  Connecticut  a  bulletin  w^hich  was  published  with- 
in a  few  years  stated  that  probably  more  than  fifty  per  cent,  of 
the  forest  trees  in  Connecticut  were  chestnuts.  That  was  on 
very  good  authority,  and  I  do  not  hesitate  to  quote  it.  In  Rhode 
Island  the  chestnut  is  of  a  little  less  imj)ortance,  but  probably 
pretty  nearly  half  of  the  trees  in  Rhode  Island  are  chestnuts. 
The  proportion  further  south  I  am  not  so  well  informed  about, 
but  we  have  the  bulk  of  the  heavy  chestnut  timber  south  of  the 
Potomac  River.  The  black  area  on  the  map  represents  the  places 
where  practically  all  the  chestnuts  are  now  dead,  and  the  various 
forms  of  lines  which  are  shown  on  tlie  ma^D  represent  varying  de- 
grees of  infection,  until  we  come  down  to  the  line  right  here.  (In- 
dicating). These  vertical  lines  represent  the  a^^proximate  limits 
of  what  you  might  call  somewhat  general  infection.  Tlie  black 
spots  which  are  shown  there  represent  the  outlying  si)ots  of  infec- 
tion, so  far  as  we  knew  them  in  Decend^er.  Here  is  the  line 
through  Pennsylvania.  The  eastern  part  of  Pennsylvania  is 
pretty  well  infected  witli  the  disease,  and  tlie  work  now  being 
done  in  this  region,  (indicating),  will  be  told  about  a  little 
later  by  someone  who  is  better  informed  than  I  am. 

In  closing  this  address,  I  want  to  read  just  a  few  words  and, 
if  we  can  have  the  lights  now,  I  will  finish  in  about  two  or  three 
minutes. 

Haviug  seen  what  this  disease  is  and  wliat  it  is* doing,  we  now 
come  to  the  question  A\liicli,  T  take  it,  we  nre  gathered  here  to 


39 

answer  as  best  we  can :    What  are  we  going  to  do  about  it?    That 
is  the  question.    Three  conditions  lie  open  before  us,  as  we  see  it : 

First :  Do  nothing ;  lie  down  and  let  the  disease  spread  as  far 
as  it  will,  and  destroy  as  much  property  as  it  can.  It  must  be 
acknowledged  that  there  is  ample  precedent  for  this  course,  as 
well  as  ample  scientific  support.  Beyond  question,  this  is  the 
easiest  thing  to  do. 

Second :  Conduct  scientific  investigations  of  the  disease,  but 
make  no  attempt  to  control  the  disease  until  these  investigations 
yield  conclusive  results.  Such  a  course  would  unquestionably 
yield  results  which  would  be  valuable  in  future  epidemics  of  dis- 
ease, but  it  would  not  save  the  chestnut  trees  at  this  time.  The 
President  of  the  Carnegie  Institution,  in  a  recent  address,  enun- 
ciated the  principle  that  the  results  of  scientific  research  must 
be  stated  in  decades,  not  in  years.  We  must  investigate  the  dis- 
ease as  thoroughly  as  possible,  but  investigation  alone,  without 
application,  will  not  save  the  trees. 

Third :  Investigate  as  thoroughly  as  possible,  devote  as  much 
money  as  possible  to  research  on  the  fundamental  problems  re- 
lating to  the  disease,  but,  at  the  same  time,  put  into  force  im- 
niediatel}^  Avhatever  measures  against  the  disease  appear  to  be 
most  promising,  recognizing  clearly  that  there  is  not  time  first  to 
prove  absolute  efliciency.  I  am  informed  that,  as  an  immediate 
result  of  the  recent  burning  of  the  Equitable  Building  in  New 
York  city,  a  special  commission  was  appointed  to  devise  better 
methods  of  fighting  fires  in  the  congested  business  section  of  New 
York,  The  appointment  of  the  commission  was  necessary  and 
will  unquestionably  yield  excellent  future  results;  but  I  notice 
tliat  the  New  York  Fire  Department,  went  ahead  and  did  its  best 
to  put  out  the  Equitable  Building  fire,  without  waiting  for  the  re- 
ports of  any  commissions.  It  appears  to  me  that  we  are  in  much 
tlie  same  situation.  Tlie  fire  is  burning  too  fast  for  us  to  wait  for 
the  reports  of  experiments  which  will  take  from  two  to  ten  years 
time  to  carry  out.  We  must  go  ahead,  using  the  l)est  methods 
that  we  have,  and  leave  the  results  to  the  futnre.      (Applause). 

THE  CHAIRMAN :  I  am  snre  everyone  will  agree  that  this 
talk  has  been  both  instructive  and -interesting,  and  we  are  par- 
ticularly indebted  to  Professor  Collins  for  stepping  in  at  the 
eleventh  liour,  as  lie  lias  done,  and  favoring  ns  so  gcneronsly. 


40 

PKOFESSOE  SELBY:  Mr.  Chairman,  would  it  not  be 
proper  for  ns  to  send,  on  behalf  of  this  Convention,  at  this  time, 
an  expression  of  our  sympathy  with  Dr.  Metcalf  in  his  serious 
accident?  I  move  you  that  such  an  expression  be  sent  by  the 
Convention. 

Seconded  by  Mr.  I.  C.  Williams. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Such  a  motion  naturally  would  go  at 
once  to  the  Resolutions  Committee,  but  the  Chair  is  glad  to  make 
an  exception  in  this  case.  Professor  Selby  moves  that  this  Con- 
ference send  a  message  of  sympathy  to  Dr.  Metcalf,  with  hopes 
for  his  speedy  recovery. 

The  motion  was  put  and  unanimously  carried. 

THE  CHAIRMAN :  The  Chair  will  appoint  Professor  Selby 
a  Committee  of  One  to  prepare  and  forward  the  message. 

The  next  on  the  program  is  a  paper  entitled  "Can  the  Chestnut 
Bark  Disease  be  Controlled?"  by  Professor  F.  C.  Stewart,  of  the 
New  York  Agricultural  Experiment  Station. 


CAN     THE     CHESTNUT     BARK     DISEASE     BE     CON- 
TROLLED? 


By  PROF.  F.  C.  STEWART,  IJeio  York  Agricultural  Experiment  Station. 


Mr.  Chairman  and  Ladies  and  Gentlemen:  My  views  are  so 
much  at  variance  with  what  I  conceive  to  be  the  sentiment  of 
this  Conference  that  I  hesitated  somewhat  to  present  them.  I 
feel  like  one  throwing  water  on  a  fire  which  his  friends  are  dili- 
gently striving  to  kindle.  But  a  sense  of  my  duty  to  the  j)ublic 
and,  also,  myself,  impels  me  to  proceed. 

I  assume  that  you  are  all  familiar  with  the  method  of  control 
which  has  been  recommended,  namel}^,  the  one  which  has  been 
outlined  by  Dr.  Metcalf  and  Prof.  Collins  in  Farmers'  Bulletin 
No.  467,  so  I  shall  not  take  time  to  explain  it.  If  you  are  not 
familiar  with  it,  you  will  become  familiar  with  it  before  the 
close  of  this  meeting. 


41 

It  is  my  opinion  that  we  are  rushing  into  this  enormously  ex- 
pensive campaign  against  the  chestnut  bark  disease  without  con- 
sidering as  carefully  as  we  should  the  chances  of  success.  The 
first  question  to  consider  is,  can  the  disease  be  controlled  by  Met- 
calf's  and  Collins'  method/  of  destroying  advance  infections  and 
establishing  an  "immune  zone?"  Tliis  is  a  technical  question  of 
fundamental  importance.  It  is  a  question  to  be  answered  by  ex- 
pert mycologists  and  plant  pathologists.  I  have  observed  that 
the  leading  advocates  of  the  method  avoid,  as  far  as  possible,  dis- 
cussion of  its  probable  effectiveness.  In  Farmers'  Bulletin  467, 
the  question  is  disposed  of  by  inserting  into  the  letter  of  trans- 
mittal the  following  sentence:  "The  experimental  data  upon 
which  the  recommendations  contained  in  this  publication  are 
based  will  be  published  in  full  in  a  forthcoming  bulletin  of  the 
Bureau  of  Plant  Industry."  The  authors  then  go  on  to  say  (page 
10)  that  "so  far  as  tested"  tlie  method  is  practicable;  and  on 
page  11,  after  giving  an  account  of  what  they  consider  a  success- 
ful attempt  to  control  the  disease  in  the  vicinity  of  Washington, 
D.  C,  conclude  with  the  following  statement:  "It  is  therefore 
believed  that  this  method  of  attack  will  prove  equally  practicable 
in  other  localities  and  if  carried  out  on  a  large  scale  will  result 
ultimately  in  the  control  of  the  bark  disease."  Up  to  the  present 
time  the  promised  bulletin  has  not  appeared  and  we  are  still  in 
the  dark  as  to  the  nature  of  the  "experimental  data."  I  had 
hoped  that  it  might  be  presented  at  this  meeting.  In  justice  to 
the  public  it  should  have  been  published  before  Bulletin  467. 
There  is  great  need  of  some  real  evidence  that  the  disease  can 
be  controlled.  Apparently,  the  sole  foundation  for  the  optimis- 
tic statements  made  by  Metcalf  and  Collins  in  Bulletin  467  is 
tlie  result  of  the  field  test^  which  they  made  at  Washington  and 
I  hold  that  no  definite  conclusions  can  be  drawn  from  that  test. 
The  chief  criticism  to  be  made  of  it  is  that  there  is  no  means  of 
knowing  wlmt  would  liave  happened  if  the  diseased  trees  had 
not  been  removed.  There  was  no  check,  and  experimenters  are 
agreed  that  experiments  without  checks  have  little  value.  This 
is  one  of  the  first  pi-inciples  of  experimentation.  Weatlier  con- 
ditions may  liave  been  unfavorable  for  the  spread  of  the  disoiase. 


42 

Most  fungous  diseases  liave  periods  of  quiescence  alternating 
with  periods  of  activity,  depending  largely  upon  varying  weather 
conditions. 

Also,  there  is  reason  to  believe  that  the  region  covered  by  the 
test  is  not  now  as  free  from  the  disease  as  Metcalf  and  Collins 
think  it  is.  Last  summer  there  were  found  two  centres  of  in- 
fection previously  overlooked.^  One  of  these  consisting  of  a 
gToup  of  six  diseased  trees,  was  within  a  few  miles  of  Washing- 
ton. In  company  with  Dr.  Metcalf  and  others  I  had  an  oppor- 
tunity to  examine  these  trees  on  December  30,  1911.  One  of 
them,  a  tree  over  three  feet  in  diameter,  was  in  an  advanced  stage 
of  the  disease.  Large  limbs  were  dead  and  the  lower  portion  of 
the  trunk  was  thickly  covered  with  spore  masses  of  the  fungus. 
How  long  these  trees  had  been  affected  it  was  impossible  to  de- 
termine, but  it  is  safe  to  say  that  some  of  them  had  been  diseased 
for  at  least  a  year  and  probably  longer.  That  is  to  say,  they  be- 
came infected  in  1910  or  earlier  and  must  have  been  discharging 
millions  of  spores  at  the  very  moment  Dr.  Metcalf  Avas  WTiting 
his  statement  that  the  country  within  a  radius  of  35  miles  of 
Washington  was  apparently  free  from  the  disease.^  It  is  quite 
probable  that  other  overlooked  cases  of  the  disease  exist  in  the 
vicinity  of  Washington  at  the  present  time. 

Further,  We  visited  two  j)laces  where  diseased  trees  had  been 
removed  and  the  disease  "eliminated"  in  1909.  In  one  case,  one 
tree  had  been  cut;  in  the  other  case  two  trees.  The  bark  had  not 
been  removed  from  the  stumps.  On  one  stump  we  found  a  few 
spore  masses  of  the  fungus;  also  on  the  base  of  a  nearby  tree. 
On  the  other  two  stumps  no  fungus  was  found.  The  first-men- 
tioned stump  had  not  sprouted,  but  the  other  two  were  sur- 
rounded by  healthy  sprouts.  At  both  points  there  were  a  few 
chestnut  trees  in  the  immediate  vicinity,  but,  so  far  as  could 
be  determined,  none  of  them  were  diseased.  It  should  be  stated, 
liowever,  that  it  is  very  difRcult  to  locate  diseased  trees  in  win- 
ter. It  is  inevitable  that  the  bark  around  the  base  of  a  diseased 
tree  and  also  the  surrounding  soil,  fallen  leaves  and  other  litter 
will  become  covered  with  spores  carried  down  by  rain.  Hence, 
when  the  diseased  trees  were  removed  thousands  of  spores  were 
left  behind.  How  long  such  spores  live  and  retain  their  power 
of  infection  is  not  known.     Noav  does  it  seem  pr()bnl)le  that  the 


43 

failure  of  the  disease  to  spread  to  nearby  trees  was  due  to  the 
removal  of  the  diseased  trees?  Is  it  not  more  likely  that  its 
spread  was  prevented  by  the  conditions  being  unfavorable  for  in- 
fection? 

Keturning  now  to  the  main  question:  No  such  method  of 
controlling  a  fungous  disease  has  ever  been  attempted.  Our 
knowledge  of  fungous  diseases  in  general  indicates  that  it  is  im- 
practicable. It  will  be  extremely  difftcult  to  locate  all  of  the 
diseased  trees  and  absolutely  impossible  to  remove  all  of  the 
fungus  after  the  diseased  trees  are  found.  The  fungus  spores, 
wliich  are  produced  (Quickly  and  in  enormous  numbers  may  be 
widely  disseminated  in  several  different  ways,  some  of  which 
cannot  be  prevented.  The  work  will  be  exceedingly  expensive 
and  must  be  continued  indefinitely.  Taking  all  these  things 
into  consideration,  the  chances  of  success  are  much  too  small  to 
warrant  the  expense. 

It  is  true  that  some  fungous  diseases,  notably  the  plum  black 
knot,  are  more  or  less  successfully^  controlled  by  the  prompt  re- 
moval of  diseased  plants  or  parts  of  plants;  but  it  should  be 
noted  that  the  diseases  successfully  controlled  in  this  way  have 
two  characteristics  which  make  this  method  of  control  possible: 
(1)  The  diseased  plants  may  be  readily  detected  in  the  early 
stages  of  the  disease;  (2)  the  causal  fungus  requires  a  long  time 
to  ripen  its  spores.  Plum  black  knot  may  be  readily  detected 
from  one  to  several  months  before  the  ripening  of  the  spores  of 
the  causal  fungus.  Hence,  the  knots  may  be  removed  before 
they  have  had  a  chance  to  spread  the  infection.  Not  so  with  the 
chestnut  disease.  It  possesses  neither  of  these  characteristics. 
It  is  difficult  to  detect  in  the  early  stages,  and  multitudes  of 
spores  may  be  produced  within  a  month  after  infection. 

Undoubtedly,  the  spores  are  carried  long  distances  by  birds, 
especially  woodpeckers,  wliich  visit  the  diseased  trees,  seeking 
borers,  in  the  tunnels  of  which  most  of  the  infections  occur.^  It 
naturally  follows  that  the  "Immune  zone"  must  be  many  miles 
wide, — Dr.  Metcalf  suggests  ten  or  twenty  miles  wide.  In  tliis 
connection,  please  note  tliat  while  the  main  line  of  infection  is 
now  somewhere  north  of  the  Potomac  river,  advance  infections 
already  occur  in  southern  Virginia  and  West  Virginia,  150  miles 
or  more  soudiAvest  of  AVjishingloii.      In  fact,  Melcjilf  and  Collins 


4-4 

say  f  "Observations  made  by  the  junior  writer  indicate  tliat  the 
disease  may  have  been  present  in  an  orchard  in  Bedford  county, 
Va,,  as  earl}^  as  1903."  The  advance  infections  are  widely  scat- 
tered. 

Back  of  the  "immune  zone"  extensive  areas  must  be  inspected 
frequently  and  thoroughly.  Should  the  "immune  zone"  be  lo- 
cated at  or  north  of  the  Potomac,  the  entire  States  of  Virginia 
and  West  Virginia  must  be  covered  by  such  inspection.  There 
is  no  knowing  Avhen  or  where  the  disease  may  break  out,  and 
when  conditions  for  its  spread  are  favorable,  a  single  diseased 
tree  overlooked  may  start  an  uncontrollable  epidemic  wliicli  will 
necessitate  establishing  a  new  "immune  zone"  farther  south  and 
starting  all  over. 

It  is  quite  generally  admitted  that  it  will  be  difficult  to  locate 
all  of  the  diseased  trees,  but  there  is  some  difference  of  opinion  as 
to  the  importance  of  this  fact.  It  may  be  argued  that  by  the  de- 
struction of  90  or  95  per  cent,  of  the  diseased  trees  the  spread  of 
the  disease  will  be  reduced  to  that  extent.  This  is  very  improb- 
able. If  this  disease  behaves  like  fungous  diseases  in  general, 
its  spread  depends  more  upon  weather  conditions  and  the  sus- 
ceptibility of  the  host  than  upon  the  number  of  spores  produced. 
When  the  conditions  for  its  spread  are  favorable  five  per  cent,  of 
the  spores  may  be  sufficient  to  nullify  any  attempt  to  control  the 
disease.  All  experience  with  such  methods  of  treatment  goes 
to  show  that  the  work  must  be  done  thoroughly,  else  it  is  not 
effective. 

The  history  of  the  chestnut  bark  disease  is  unparalleled  in  the 
annals  of  plant  pathology.  Here  we  have  an  unknown  fungus, 
none  of  the  relatives  of  which  are  parasites,  suddenly  becoming 
widespread  and  taking  high  rank  as  a  destructive  parasite.  This 
indicates  that  it  may  be  expected  to  behave  in  an  erratic  manner 
and  be  unusually  difficult  to  control;  also,  that  something 
unusual  has  happened  either  to  the  host  or  to  the  fungus,  or  per- 
haps to  botli,  making  this  epidemic  j)0ssible.  Just  wiiat  tliis 
may  be  I  am  unal)le  to  say.  There  is  no  reason  for  believing 
that  the  fungus  is  either  a  recent  creation  or  a  recent  introduc- 
tion from  abroad.  The  only  rational  theory  yet  advanced  re- 
garding the  origin  of  the  epidemic  is  Dr.  Clinton's  winter-and- 
drought-injury  theory,'^  but  even  this  seems  insuflicieut  in  some 
respects. 


45 

It  lias  been  asked  "What  then  wonld  jou  have  ns  do?  Stand 
idle  while  the  disease  destroys  onr  chestnut  forests  "  My 
answer  is  this :  It  may  be  well  to  restrict  the  transportation  of 
diseased  nnrsery  stock,  but  this  is  all  that  it  is  worth  while  to 
attempt  at  present  in  the  line  of  combating  the  disease.  It  is  het- 
tcr  to  attempt  notJiiiif/  tluni  to  maste  a  large  amount  of  public 
moitcij  oil  a  method  of  control  which  there  is  every  reason  to  he- 
lievc  cannot  succeed.  I  believe  in  being  honest  with  the  public 
and  admitting  frankly  that  we  know  of  no  way  to  control  this 
disease.  I  favor  moderate-sized  appropriations  for  investigation 
of  the  disease,  but  none  at  all  to  be  used  in  attempts  to  control  it 
by  any  method  or  methods  at  present  known. 

What  will  be  the  future  course  of  the  disease  can  only  be  con- 
jectured, but  it  can  be  safely  predicted  that  nothing  which  man 
can  now  do  will  materially  alter  its  course.  However,  the  situa- 
tion is  by  no  means  hopeless.  That  the  disease  has  already  reach- 
ed its  zenith  and  will  now  gradually  subside  is  quite  possible. 
Tliere  have  been  other  epidemics,  and  other  kinds  of  trees  and 
l)lants  have  been  threatened  with  destruction  through  disease, 
but  such  a  thing  has  never  actually  happened.  So  far  as  known, 
no  plant  has  ever  been  exterminated  by  disease.  It  is  unlikely 
that  the  chestnut  will  be  exterminated. 

THE  CHAIRMAN :  It  occurs  to  the  Chair  that  the  situation 
would  suggest  discussion  at  this  time,  but  it  would  probably  be 
better  to  continue  with  our  programme  as  it  was  ably  laid  out  by 
those  who  have  provided  for  this  Conference,  and  have  the  dis- 
cussion after  we  have  heard  the  papers.  We  will,  therefore,  call 
for  the  next  paper,  entitled  "How  Further  Research  may  Increase 
the  Efficiency  of  the  Control  of  the  Chestnut  Bark  Disease,"  by 
Professor  W.  Howard  Rankin,  Cornell  University,  Ithaca,  New 
York. 


1.  Mctcalf,  H.   anrl  Collins,   J.   F.     The  control  of  the  chestnut  bark  disease.     U.   S.   D.  A. 
Farmers'  Bui.   467,   28  O.   1911. 

2.  Loc.  cit.   p.   11. 

3.  Reported  by  Dr.   Mctcalf   at  a  conference  on  the  chestnut  bark  disease  held   in  Albany, 
N.   Y.,   October  19,  1911. 

4.  U.    S.    B'.    A.    Farmers'   Bui.   467:11. 

5.  U.  S.  D.  A.  Farmers'  Bui.  467:10. 

6.  Metcalf  and  Collins.    The  present  status  of  the  chestnut  bark  disease.     U.  S.  D.  A.  Bur. 
Plant  Indus.  Bui.  141,  Part  V,  p.  46.  30  S.  1909. 

7.  Clinton,  G.  P.    Report  of  the  Botanist,  1908.     Conn.  Exp.  Sta.  Rpt.  of  J907-J908:  879-890. 
July,   1909. 


46 


HOW  FUKTHEK  EESEAKCH  MAY  INCREASE  THE  EFFI- 
CIENCY OF  THE  CONTROL  OF  THE  CHEST- 
NUT BARK  DISEASE. 


BY   PliOFESSOK   W.   HOWARD   RANKIN,    Vorncll   University,    Ithaca,    N.   Y. 


Mr.  Cliairiiiau,  Ladies  and  Geiitlemeii :  U])  to  this  time  investi- 
gations concerning  the  chestnut  tree  canker  disease  and  the 
causal  fungus  have  not  brouglit  forth  facts  as  rapidly  as  we 
could  wish.  It  was  the  opinion  of  the  conference  held  at  Albany, 
N.  Y.  last  October  that  we  did  not  have  facts  enough  about  the 
disease  and  that  scientific  research  was  the  one  thing  needed.  To 
emphasize  this  point  we  may  consider  some  important  phases  of 
the  disease  which  are  yet  little  understood,  but  tlie  knowledge  of 
which  is  fundamental  to  devising  efficient  control  methods.  Con- 
cerning the  means  of  spread  of  the  fungus  from  one  tree  to 
another  we  have  nothing  except  secondary  evidence.  Most  Avrit- 
ers  have  theorized  on  the  different  methods  by  which  the  conidia 
or  suminer  spores  might  be  carried  from  one  tree  to  another  and 
a  new  infection  started.  Reasoning  by  analogy  with  what  is 
known  of  the  behavior  of  many  fungi,  such  agencies  as  borers, 
birds,  ants  and  the  Avind,  etc.,  have  been  suggested  but  in  no  Avise 
proved  to  be  responsible.  •  It  seems  that  the  ascospore  stage  has 
not  l)een  considered  b}'  an^^  writer  in  the  dissemination  of  the 
fungus,  yet  this  stage  follows  the  conidia  very  quickly  and  is  the 
more  abundant  fruiting  stage  wliich  is  formed  in  the  red  or  brown 
pustules  on  the  surface  of  the  cankers.  Under  moist  conditions 
the  ascosi^ores  are  shot  forcibly  out  in  the  air  where  they  can  be 
caught  up  by  the  wind  and  carried  for  a  considerable  distance. 
The  speaker  found  the  ascospores  being  shot  from  mature  pus- 
tules during  every  rainy  period  last  summer.  These  spores  ger- 
minate readily  in  rain  water  producing  a  new  mycelium  of  con- 
siderable length  in  fifteen  hours.  The  question  at  once  arises, 
why  could  not  these  ascospores  once  sliot  into  the  air  be  carried 
long  distances  and  owing  to  their  abundance  cause  a  large  ma- 
jority of  the  infection?     The  time  of  year  at  which  new  infec- 


47 

lions  took  i)lace  last  summer  in  the  Hndson  Eiver  Valley  was 
evidently  about  the  time  when  the  ascospore  stage  was  just  be- 
coming abundant.  It  is  an  important  matter  then  to  determine 
the  spore  stage  and  the  agency  responsible  for  the  spread  of  the 
fungus  before  we  can  hope  to  advise  an  efficient  and  effective  con- 
trol. For  example,  such  precautionary  measures  as  the  peeling 
of  logs  before  allowing  them  to  be  moved  could  be  limited  to  the 
time  of  year  when  this  Avas  necessary  and  thus  obviate  a  great 
cost. 

Likewise  the  problem  as  to  liow  the  present  epidemical  char- 
acters exhibited  by  the  disease  have  come  about  is  as  far  from 
solution  as  it  was  six  years  ago.  Tlie  speaker  has  recently  col- 
lected and  examined  a  fungus  indistinguishable  from  the  chest- 
nut canker  disease  fungus  on  dead  chestnut  bark  in  several 
places  in  Virginia.  No  case  of  this  fungus  attacking  living 
trees  was  found  in  the  sliort  preliminary  examination  made  near 
Ly  neb  burg,  although  several  specimens  Avere  collected  on  dead 
bark  of  stumps  from  which  trees  were  cut  about  Iavo  years  ago. 
Also  a  fungus  found  in  Pennsylvania  on  white,  red  and  black 
oak  has  great  similarity  to  the  canker  disease  fungus.  The  pos- 
sibility of  having  several  strains  of  the  same  fungus  identical  as 
to  microscopic  characters,  some  saprophytic  and  others  causing 
a  virulent  disease,  is  at  once  puzzling.  One  of  two  things  has 
evidently  happened,  either  the  host  plant  has,  under  existing 
conditions,  been  altered  in, its  physiological  process  enough  to 
cliange  its  susceptibility  to  tliis  heretofore  saprophytic  fungus, 
or  the  fungus  has  developed  a  parasitic  habit  independent  of 
any  change  in  the  host.  Possibly,  of  course,  both  factors  may 
liave  combined  to  bring  about  this  disease-condition.  Prelim- 
inary investigations  carried  on  by  the  speaker  seem  to  point  to 
the  fact  that  the  susceptibility  of  the  chestnut  tree  to  this  fungus 
depends  upon  drought  conditions;  that  is  a  low  water  content  in 
the  tree.  This  requires  confirmation  however  by  further  detailed 
experiment.  Weather  conditions  causing  winter  injury  as  sug- 
gested by  Dr.  Clinton  may  quite  possibly  be  of  importance  also 
in  this  connection,  and  accurate  data  concerning  past  weather 
conditions  and  experiments  to  determine  the  effect  of  low  temper- 
nture  on  the  chestnut  tree  in  connection  with  the  production  of 
susceptibility  is  highly  important. 


48 

If  tlie  results  of  Dr.  IMuiK-li  on  ilie  cause  of  susceptibility  aud 
iiiimuiiit}^  of  forest  trees  to  disease  should  prove  true  in  the  case 
of  this  disease  also,  Ave  may  hope  to  be  able  to  control  the  bark 
disease  in  shade,  lawn,  and  park  trees,  by  keeping  up  the  Avater 
content  of  the  tree. 

Whether  nursery  stock  serves  to  introduce  the  disease  into 
neAv  localities  is  an  important  problem  to  be  determined  by  ob- 
servation and  experiment.  The  present  method  of  inspection 
and  cutting  out  Avould  be  inefficient  if  the  fungus  lives  commonly 
as  a  saproi^hyte  at  the  base  of  the  tree  on  dead  bark  and  can  at- 
tain a  parasitic  habit  AAdth  some  slight  change  in  AA^eather  condi- 
tions. If,  on  the  other  hand,  it  exists  only  as  a  Avound  parasite, 
then  inspections  A\^ould  be  possible  and  the  cutting  out  method 
effective.  HoAA'ever,  Avith  such  jproblems  as  these  undecided,  no 
one  can  pronounce  definite  judgment  upon  the  efficiency  of  the 
cutting  out  method.  Once  hoAvever,  these  facts  are  established, 
modifications  may  be  made  in  the  present  method  by  Avhich  its 
effectiveness  may  be  insured  at  possiblj^  a  loAver  cost  than  can 
noAV  be  expected. 

The  present  method  Avhich  the  Pennsylvania  Commission  has 
adopted  of  eradicating  only  spots  A\diere  the  fungus  is  distinctly 
parasitic,  can  accomplish  a  great  good  in  a  sanitary  AA^ay,  and 
once  sufficient  facts  are  forthcoming,  the  method  may  be  altered 
to  suit  our  knoA^dedge  and  thus  its  efficiency  assured. 

THE  CHAIEMAN :  The  next  paper,  entitled  "Eecent  Notes  on 
the  Chestnut  Bark  Disease,"'  Avill  be  delivered  by  Professor  H.  E. 
Fulton,  Division  of  Pathology,  Pennsylvania  State  College.  ■ 


EECENT  NOTES  ON  THE  CHESTNUT  BAEK  DISEASE. 

BY   PROFESSOR   H.   R.   FULTON,    Pennsylvania  State  College,    State         ™ 

College,  Pa. 


The  steady  and  devastating  spread  of  the  chestnut  bark  dis- 
ease brings  us  face  to  face  Avith  a  grave  situation,  and  raises 
many  questions  of  great  importance.  Most  of  these  AAdll  centre 
about  the  three  great  questions :  Is  it  possible  to  check  effectively 


Orchard  chestnut  tree  girdled  at  base,   showing  characteristic  growth  of  sprouts. 
Scene  near  Westbury,   New  York.— PJiotograpli  hy  Perley  Spaulding. 


Large  forest  tree  girdled  at  base,    showing  cliaracteristic  growth  of  sprouts;   near 
Richmond  Hill,    New  York.— Photoyiaph   by  Prof.  Collins. 


Large  trees  with  some  branches  girdled.     Note  condition  of  the  foliage.     Scene  at 
Westbury,   New  York. — Pliotograpli  ly  Prof.  Collins. 


Large  trees  with  some  branches  girdled.     Note  condition   of  foliage.     Scene  at 
Westbury,   New  York. — Photograph   hy  Prof.  Collins. 


I 


Orchard   chestnuts,    (grafted  varieties),    nearly  dead.     Note   sprouts  on   the  trunks. 

Photograph  hy  Prof.  Collins. 


'« 

is 

''-Je 

A 

1 

'^ 

sl 

14 

m 

Si 

|#  , 

^§. 

^ 

H 

^- 

#'  '1 

^M 

^rfffm 

•       * 

^ 

« 

m 

BiVPHT^ 

w^^ 

fBM>" -x.     '^ 

'« 

^^ 

% 

r, 

^^I^^hHS^B^^^^E^^^'' 

•  -i« 

%fl 

&& 

♦^'i 

■'c'."'l55 

#^v    . 

Orchard   chestnut   with   limb   girdled   by   twig-girdling  borer.     Easily   mistaken   at 
a  short  distance  for  chestnut  bark  disease. — Photograph  hy  Prof.  Collins. 


Examples  of  tree  surgery,  showing  healing  process  after  cutting  out  cankers,  in 
treatment  of  orchard  trees.  This  treatment  undoubtedly  prolongs  the  life  of  the 
trees. — l^hotofjniph  by  Prof.  Collins. 


Example  of  tree  surgery,  showing  healing  process  after  cutting  out  cankers  in 
treatment  of  orchard  trees.  Will  prolong  life  of  tree. — Photograph  hy  Prof. 
Collins. 


Chestunt  tree  showing  early  stage  of  disease  ;  note  small  girdled  twig  on  upper  part 
of  the  tree  in  the  centre  of  the  picture. 


Large  chestnut  tree  partly  dead.  Note  sprouts  with  leaves  near  the  top,  the 
dwarfed  leaves  on  the  middle  right-band  limb,  and  the  healthy  lower  branches  with 
normal   leaves.     Scene  at  Rawlinsville,    Penua. — I'hoiograph   hij  Prof.   Collins. 


Early   stage   of  infection   in   an   orchard   tree ;   note   girdled   twigs   with   withered 
leaves  at  top.     Scene  in  Lancaster  county,   Penna. — Photograph  hy  Prof.  Collins. 


Complete  destruction  of  the  chestnut  trees  in  mixed  stand.  Note  healthy  con- 
dition of  trees  of  other  species.  Views  along  Long  Island  Railroad,  near  Richmond 
Hill,  New  York. — Photofiraph  hij  Prof.  Collins. 


^^^ 

\ 

1       \ 

Jr  r<  ^^ 

L 

fc^ 

4  ^ 

f       ^< 

tl  1 

1 

^ 

"    / 

M 

Bm^S^ 

r 

^^ 

^ 

^WM 

11/ ^^ 

ri- 

^.' 

^^^fc 

l:Q 

1     1 

« 

'S^ii^P^^^ 

^E.   ^^^ 

M^-«* 

gJ<g^Mp.|^^t:-J; 

^^m 

«(#<■ 

■■>'^; 

f 

^- 1  *: 

^'''"^^BPIB 

^^g 

^^ 

C:..: 

^^g^-'A^saK' 

''■'■^■fi.v 

■    r  .,:.^jl^^-^-.  .:,# 

^1%;  ^i^ 

^s^^? 

2 

:r? 

Ss 

5ii«>'  i;',7.  ^   • 

;.  ,.«>S»avX>,fst>5;          ■        -. 

.:^, 

Complete  destruction  of  chestnut  trees  in  mixed  stands.     Note  healthy  condition 
of  trees  of  other  species.     Views  along  Long  Island  Railroad,   near  Richmond  Hill, 
New   York. — Flioiograph    hy  Prof.    Collins. 


Small  orchard  chestnut  nearlj-  dead. — Photograph  hij  Prof.  Collins. 


A  djdng  tree  on  Long  Island,   New  York. 


Examples  of  tree  surgery,  showing  healing  process  after  cutting  out  cankers,  in 
treatment  of  orchard  trees.  This  treatment  undoubtedly  prolongs  the  life  of  the 
trees. — Photograph  by  Prof.  Collins. 


41) 

the  spread  of  this  disease?  Is  it  worth  while  doing  so?  What 
are  the  best  methods  to  use  While  no  one,  perhaps,  will  ven- 
ture to  prophesy  the  outcome,  all  doubtless  agree  that  the  great 
interests  at  stake  justify  an  aggressive  fight;  and  all  alike  are 
anxious  to  see  the  warfare  waged  in  the  most  effective  way. 
Other  contests  against  fungous  foes  have  been  won  in  spite  of 
apparently  insuperable  obstacles,  and  we  now  look  back  from 
the  vantage  ground  of  knowledge  gained  through  the  contests, 
and  wonder  that  the  tasks  should  have  seemed  hard.  Each  year 
witnesses  the  conquest  of  more  than  one  important  pest,  just  as 
each  year  is  apt  to  bring  into  the  limelight  some  hitherto  unob- 
trusive pest.  Mention  might  be  made  of  scores  of  animal  and 
plant  pests  that,  in  the  wide  interchanges  incident  to  modern 
civilization,  have  been  brought  into  contact  with  new  host  species, 
or  with  new  environmental  conditions,  and  have  forthwith  en- 
tered upon  a  period  of  riotous  devastation.  At  the  present  time, 
federal  and  state  resources  are  being  drawn  upon,  and  concerted 
state  action  is  being  had,  in  the  fights  against  the  gypsy  and 
brown-tail  moths  in  New  England,  and  against  the  cotton  boll 
weevil  in  tlie  southwestern  portion  of  the  cotton  belt.  I  cannot 
refrain  from  recalling  to  mind  the  eradication  of  the  cattle  tick 
in  certain  districts  within  its  range,  and  the  stamping  out  of  yel- 
low fever  in  territory  undtr  United  State  jurisdiction,  as  notable 
examples  of  success  that  hafe  in  recent  times  come  from  complete 
knowledge  of  the  situations,  combined  with  efficient  administra- 
tion. As  a  citizen  of  Pennsylvania,  I  take  pride  in  pointing  to 
the  successful  suppression  of  the  foot  and  mouth  disease  of  cattle, 
during  1908,  by  the  State  Livestock  Sanitary  Board  in  co-opera- 
tion with  the  Federal  Bureau  of  Animal  Industry.  These  were 
campaigns  of  quarantine  and  sanitation. 

These  examples  of  very  diverse  nature  do  not  prove  anything  in 
regard  to  the  chestnut  bark  disease;  but  they  do  serve  to  em- 
phasize the  fact  that  persistent  effort  in  the  right  direction  may 
win  in  the  face  of  great  odds. 

To  the  specialist  in  plant  diseases,  a  most  interesting  question 
is,  why  is  it  that  this  disease  has  made  such  headway  in  this  coun- 
try in  so  short  a  time.  Is  it  that  there  are  factors  involved,  aside 
from  administrative  difficulties,  tliat  are  not  found  in  the  many 

4 


50 

fmigoii.s  diseases  that  affect  our  crops, — less  spectacular  in  tlieir 
working,  but  none  the  less  damaging  in  their  elTects?  Or  is  it 
that  well  recognized  factors  are  here  found  in  a  unique  combina- 
tion that  adds  to  the  seriousness  of  the  situation?  Is  this  dis- 
ease inherently  more  serious  than  pear  blight  or  cotton  wilt  or 
wheat  stem  rust?  Answers  to  such  questions  involve  considera- 
tion of  the  habits  and  value  of  the  host  plant,  as  well  as  definite 
knowledge  on  all  important  points  in  the  life  history  of  the  causa- 
tive organism,  Diaporthe  parasitica. 

For  chestnut  bark  disease  infection  to  occur,  three  general  con- 
ditions must  be  met  just  as  for  any  other  fungous  disease. 
Broadly  stated,  these  are  (1)  the  presence  of  infective  material, 
(2)  a  host  plant  in  a  condition  of  susceptibility,  (3)  general  en- 
vironmental conditions  that  are  favorable.  All  rational  control 
measures  for  the  disease  must  be  based  on  the  peculiarities  of  this 
fungus  with  reference  to  these  three  things. 

The  infective  material  for  Diaporthe  parasitica  seems  to  be 
pre-eminently  the  spores,  which  are  of  two  types,  the  pycnospores, 
sometimes  called  conidia  or  summer  spores,  and  the  ascospores, 
or  winter  spores.  AVe  wish  to  know  definitely  the  conditions  that 
influence  the  formation  of  each  type,  the  longevity  of  each  under 
favorable  and  under  unfavorable  conditions,  their  modes  of  shed- 
ding and  of  transfer,  the  conditions  favorable  and  unfavorable  to 
their  germination,  their  abilities  to  establish  the  fungus  upon 
various  materials,  and  the  relative  importance  of  the  two  types 
in  spreading  the  disease.  General  environmental  conditions  may 
have  their  effect  upon  longevity  of  spores,  upon  germination  of 
spores,  upon  rapidity  of  growth  of  the  fungus,  and  upon  spore 
production  by  the  fungus.  Susceptibility  in  the  host  has  refer- 
ence to  qualities  of  genera  or  species  or  varieties  or  strains  or 
individuals,  that  render  them  lial)le  to  attack  by  the  fungus, 
which  qualities  maj'-  be  inherent  or  possibly  induced  by  environ- 
UKMital  conditions.  Here  must  be  included  the  exposure  through 
various  wounds  of  susceptible  portions  of  the  host;  and  the  pro- 
tective effects  of  measures  that  may  lessen  the  susceptibility  of 
the  host.  Other  points  in  the  general  life  history  of  the  organism 
may  be  of  interest  and  importance,  aside  from  any  direct  rela- 
tion to  the  setting  up  of  infection. 


51  , 

Eealiziiig  ibe  importance  to  the  public  welfare  of  more  com- 
plete knowledge  along  these  lines,  the  Pennsylvania  Agricultural 
Experiment  Station,  through  its  laboratory  of  plant  pathology, 
has  undertaken  certain  investigations  upon  the  life  history  of 
Diaporthe  parasitica,  in  hearty  co-operation  with  the  work  of  the 
Pennsylvania  Chestnut  Tree  Blight  Commission.  While  a  com- 
l^lete  report  cannot  be  made,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  for  a  long 
time,  we  beg  to  submit  a  brief  preliminary  report  on  the  labora- 
tory work  now  being  carried  on  by  Mr.  R.  A.  Waldron,  of  the 
Experiment  Station  staff ;  to  which  is  added  at  the  request  of  the 
Executive  Officer  of  the  Pennsylvania  Commission,  a  summary 
of  field  studies  made  by  Mr.  R.  C.  Walton,  one  of  the  field  agents 
of  the  Commission.  Credit  for  the  findings  reported  here  is  due 
to  the  careful  work  of  these  two  men. 

AIR  CURRENTS  AS   CARRIERS  OP  THE  CONIDIA. 

The  tests  were  made  with  the  blast  from  an  electric  fan,  with 
a  velocity  of  perhaps  twenty  miles  an  hour.  The  material  used 
was  bark  of  chestnut  with  tendrils  of  conidia  projecting  from 
the  mouths  of  the  fruit-bodies.  The  tests  were  made  with  these 
tendrils  dr^^,  with  them  moist,  and  with  the  spray  from  an  atomi- 
zer playing  over  them,  the  last  to  imitate  conditions  prevailing 
during  storms.  The  attempt  was  made  to  catch  the  spores  on  the 
surface  of  sterilized  potato  agar  exposed  about  six  inches  away, 
in  the  blast;  and  to  determine  the  carrying  power  of  the  air  cur- 
rent from  the  subsequent  growth  of  Diaporthe  parasitica  in  this 
material.  Also,  wet  cotton  was  similarly  held  in  the  blast;  it 
Avas  then  squeezed  out  in  sterile  water ;  this  was  centrif uged,  and 
microscopic  examination  made  of  the  sediment,  as  well  as  cul- 
tures from  it.  There  was  unmistakable  evidence,  from  each 
line  of  testing,  that  the  conidia  may  be  detached  by  strong  air 
currents,  and  carried  short  distances.  The  detachment  was 
greater  when  the  spra}^  played  over  the  material.  The  test  will 
have  to  be  carried  further  before  quantitative  results  can  be 
given.  It  seems  likely  tliat  the  detachment  was  largely  of  small 
bits  of  the  tendrils  made  up  of  large  numbers  of  spores,  and  that 
these  are  too  heavy  to  be  carried  great  distances;  and  suggests 
that  under  natural  conditions  infection  may  be  spread  short 
distances  by  wind. 


52 
LONGEVITY  OF  CONIDIA  AND  ASCOSPORES. 

The  length  of  time  that  conidia  retain  their  power  to  germinate 
will  donbtless  vary  with  the  conditions  nnder  which  the  spores 
are  kept.  Spores  from  bark  collected  in  late  summer  and  kept 
dry  at  ordinary  room  temperature,  germinated  readily  for  four 
months,  but  three  weeks  later  could  not  be  induced  to  germinate. 
Material  exposed  out  of  doors  and  that  kept  moist  and  at  about 
75  degrees  F.  in  a  greenhouse,  did  not  give  germination  of  conidia 
after  four  months  earlier  tests  not  having  been  made. 

GERMINATION  OF  CONIDIA  AND  ASCOSPORES  IN  DIFFERENT  MEDIA. 

Both  kinds  of  spores  germinate  in  a  decoction  of  chestnut  bark, 
in  rice  broth,  etc.  Ascospores  germinate  in  spring  water,  the 
conidia  do  not. 

EFFECT  OF  TEMPERATURE  ON  GERMINATION. 

Conidia  germinate  best  at  a  temperature  of  60  degrees  F.,  and 
dji^tinctly  less  rapidly  at  temperatures  10  degrees  above  or  below 
this  point. 

Ascospores  germinate  best  at  a  temperature  of  about  70  degrees 
F.,  but  a  good  percentage  of  germination  occurs  at  85  degrees  F. 
and  45  degrees  F.  Even  at  38  degrees  F.  the  germination  of  as- 
cospores was  25  per  cent,  in  the  first  24  hours,  and  reached  70 
per  cent,  in  three  days.  Ascospores  germinate  readily  after  at 
least  moderate  freezing.  These  facts  indicate  that  the  ascos- 
pores may  play  a  more  important  part  in  causing  infection  under 
certain  conditions,  than  has  been  commonly  attributed  to  them. 

The  effect  of  extremely  high  and  low  temperatures  on  spores 
has  not  yet  been  completely  investigated  in  our  laboratory. 

EFFECT  OF  TEMPERATURE  ON  EARLY  GROWTH. 

In  general  the  most  rapid  early  growth  is  at  the  optimum  tem- 
perature for  germination.  In  a  nutrient  solution  of  boiled  chest- 
nut bark,  the  ascospores  will  send  out  a  length  of  mycelium  10 
to  15  times  the  spore  length  in  the  first  24  hours  at  70  degrees  F., 
which  becomes  an  indefinitely  large  mass  of  mycelium  in  two 
days.  At  38  degrees  F.,  the  growth  is  about  one  spore  length  the 
first  day,  and  15  times  this  in  five  days. 


53 

GROWTH  ON  OTHER  MATERIALS  THAN  CHESTNUT. 

lu  tlie  laboratory  the  fuugus  grows  well  on  a  variety  of  artifi- 
cial media,  perhaps  most  readily  on  potato  agar  that  has  been 
made  slightly  acid.  Material  was  submitted  to  us  of  white  oak 
and  black  oak  bark,  collected  by  Mr.  J.  E.  Guyer,  agent  of  the 
Pennsylvania  Commission,  which  bark  had  been  killed  by  fire  pre- 
vious  to  its  observation,  and  sxlu^\e  :  pustules  of  what  seemed  to 
be  DiajjorthG  parasitica.  Careful  microscopic  examination  show- 
ed that  the  morphological  features  corres^Donded  closely  to  those 
of  DiciportUe  parasitica,  as  did  also  the  growth  of  the  fungous  in 
artificial  culture.  Eed  oak  twigs  killed  by  steaming  in  the  process 
of  sterilization,  were  readily  infected  by  DiaportJie  parasitica  ob- 
tained froin  a  typical  chestnut  lesion.  While  it  is  desirable  to 
carry  on  further  cross  inoculation  experiments,  it  seems  rea- 
sonable to  suppose,  in  the  light  of  j)resent  evidence,  that  Diapor- 
the  parasitica  may,  under  unusual  circumstances,  establish  itself 
sajorophytically  on  portions  of  trees  outside  the  genus  Castanea, 
if  these  portions  are  already  dead.  We  have  found  no  evidence 
that  the  fungus  produces  in  any  sense  a  disease  of  such  trees  as 
the  oak. 

RELATION    TO    LIGHTNING    INJURY. 

In  August,  1908,  Mr.  George  Wirt,  of  the  Pennsylvania  For- 
estry Department,  directed  the  attention  of  the  speaker  to  a 
chestnut  tree  in  an  advanced  stage  of  infection,  that  had  been 
struck  by  lightning  earlier  in  the  season,  when  its  leaves  were 
half  grown.  Where  the  wood  had  been  splintered  along  the 
lightning  track,  there  w^ere  numerous  pycnidia  standing  apart 
one  from  the  other,  as  is  characteristic  of  Diaporthe  parasitica 
when  fruiting  on  wood  rather  than  on  bark.  Many  of  these  fruit- 
bodies  were  deep  in  the  cracks  made  by  the  lightning,  and  evi- 
dently had  been  formed  after  the  stroke.  Specimens  taken  from 
the  wood  and  from  tlie  bark  near  by,  wiien  tested,  gave  good 
germination  of  spores.  Probably  the  bark  infection,  which 
seemed  to  date  far  back,  existed  at  the  time  of  the  stroke,  aud  the 
fungus  spread  from  this  to  the  shattered  wood,  tlie  liglituiiig 
presumably  not  having  killed  the  fungus  in  tbe  vicinity. 


54 

DEVELOPMENT  IN  SAPWOOD  AND  HEARTWOOD. 

Where  a  seetiou  of  a  large  infected  branch  was  kept  in  a  moist 
atmosphere  constantly,  an-abnndant  development  of  pycnidial 
fruit  bodies  was  noted  in  about  two  months  from  both  sapwood 
and  heartwood  at  the  more  moist  cut  surface.  The  similar  de- 
velopment in  wood  shattered  by  lightning  has  been  mentioned 
above.  In  two  cases,  the  fungus  was  found  on  young,  unligui- 
fied  shoots;  in  both  cases,  the  parts  had  been  distinctly  injured 
by  insects. 

SUMMARY  OF  FIELD  STUDIES  AT  ORBISONIA,  PA. 

During  the  fall  and  early  winter  of  1911-12,  Mr.  E.  C.  Walton 
made  a  detailed  study  of  an  advance  spot  of  infection  at  Orbi- 
sonia,  Huntingdon  county,  in  Central  Pennsylvania.  The  tract 
covered  some  forty-six  acres  on  the  north  and  northwest  slope  of 
a  mountain.  It  had  been  cut  over  originally  forty-live  years 
ago,  and  at  intervals  since,  the  last  cutting  being  in  1908.  Most 
of  the  chestnut  growth  was  coppice  of  four  years  standing. 
Rather  severe  fire  injury  had  occurred  in  1902,  and  the  land  had 
been  pastured  recently.  Soil  conditions  and  density  of  stand 
varied  considerably  over  the  tract.  The  infection  was  found  in 
detached  spots  over  about  thirteen  acres.  There  was  one  spot 
that  seemed  to  be  the  original  centre  of  infection,  dating  back 
tAvo  years ;  but  elsewhere  in  the  area  there  were  lesions  apparently 
as  old.  Altogether  three  thousand  and  fifty-nine  chestnut  trees, 
sprouts,  and  stumps  were  examined  and  two  hundred  and  eighty, 
or  9.1  per  cent,  were  found  to  be  infected.  Of  these,  practically 
all  were  four  year  coppice  growth.  The  oldest  lesions  wpre 
seemingly  two  years  old,  and  ten  of  these  were  found.  The 
youngest  were  for  the  current  season,  and  of  the  total,  about  half 
seemed  to  be  less  than  one  year  old;  and  estimates  of  the  age  of 
all  the  lesions  indicated  a  very  uniform  rate  of  spread  during 
the  two  years.  It  may  be  added  from  a  recent  investigation  that 
153  trees,  in  southeastern  Pennsylvania,  near  Haverf ord  exposed 
to  natural  infection,  carefully  examined  and  marked  as  unin- 
fected in  January  1911,  showed  25  trees  infected  in  a  recent  ex- 
amination. This  would  indicate  sometliiiig,  perhaps,  of  the 
rapidity  of  the  spread  ol  the  disease,  where  observations  were 
made  upon  that  point. 


55 

Out  of  18  sprouts  showing  two  lesions,  13  had  the  younger 
lesion  above  and  5  the  older,  which  might  indicate  the  probable 
work  of  insects  in  carrying  infection. 

Sprouts  were  originally  infected  at  the  base  in  more  than  four- 
fifths  of  the  cases.  Forty  per  cent,  of  the  oldest  lesions  on 
sprouts  showed  twigs  as  a  centre  of  infection ;  eighteen  per  cent, 
showed  cracks,  fourteen  per  cent,  wounds;  thirteen  per  cent, 
beetle  holes,  eleven  per  cent,  crotches,  and  four  per  cent,  were  in- 
determinate. 

More  infections  were  found  in  medium  dense  growth  than  in 
dense  growth,  and  very  few  in  rather  o^Den  growth.  Of  all  in- 
fections recorded,  47.3  per  cent,  were  within  twenty  feet  of  old 
logging  roads,  7.4  per  cent,  from  20  to  50  feet  away,  and  45.3 
per  cent,  at  greater  distance.  Many  more  infections  were  found 
where  soil  conditions  were  moderately  moist  than  where  they 
were  dry.  Of  150  original  sprout  infections,  62,  or  41  per  cent, 
had  a  north  to  northeast  exposure;  20  or  13  per  cent,  a  south  to 
southwest  exposure;  and  the  remainder  were  about  equally 
divided  between  the  other  two  quadrants  of  the  compass.  This 
might  suggest  moisture  again  as  an  important  factor. 

There  were  28  cases  of  pycnidia  observed  developing  on  wood. 
Onl3^  eight  trees  larger  than  seven  inches  in  diameter  sliOAved  in- 
fection. One  of  these  had  a  lesion  apparently  two  years  old;  and 
half  had  the  oldest  lesion  less  than  one  year  old.  All  of  the  tree 
infection  was  in  the  bark  of  the  trunk,  none  in  the  tops.  Half 
had  development  of  watersprouts  in  connection  with  the  lesions. 
Lesions  in  the  bark  of  stumps  showed  fissures  at  their  centres 
in  almost  all  cases,  and  in  tlie  oldest  ones  the  pustules  were 
usually  dark  and  in  the  ascus  stage. 

In  connection  with  lesions  on  sprouts,  trees,  and  stumps,  there 
were  abundant  evidences  of  animal  association,  principally 
beetle  and  other  large  insect  larvae,  tunnels  and  holes;  but  also 
Avoodpecker  holes  and  claw  marks,  and  ant  nests  and  trails. 
Most  of  the  ant  nests  were  in  old  dried  stump  stubs.  Fully  nine- 
tenths  of  all  old  lesions  showed  beetle  larvae  in  or  near  tliem. 
These  Avere  mainly  a  species  of  Leptura.  Of  the  youngest  lesions, 
al)out  (wo-fifilis  s1i()W(m1  larvae  in  or  near  them;  and  in  all  cases 


56 

there  were  about  twice  as  maii}^  larvae  in  as  near  the  lesions.  It 
would  seem  that  these  usuallj^  follow  rather  than  precede  the  in- 
fection. 

Woodpecker  work  was  noted  in  about  one-tenth  of  the  oldest 
lesions,  and  not  at  all  in  the  youngest  lesions,^ — much  less  fre- 
quently than  beetle  Avork.  Ants  were  seldom  found  actually  in 
the  lesions. 

It  is  expected  that  careful  observations  of  this  same  tract  next 
year  and  later,  will  add  much  to  the  value  of  the  present  very 
complete  records,  which  it  has  been  possible  to  summarize  only 
briefly  in  this  account. 

A  good  deal  is  known  about  this  parasite;  very  much  remains 
to  be  learned.  As  far  as  our  present  knowledge  goes,  the  prompt 
stamping  out  of  advance  spots  of  infection,  and  the  general  cut- 
ting off  of  hopelessly  infected  tracts,  seem  to  be  the  only  practi- 
cable means  of  control.  No  one  perhaps  realizes  more  keenly 
than  the  speaker  the  difficulties  of  finding  infection  and  thor- 
oughly removing  it  in  sparsely  settled  tracts  of  large  extent  and 
of  little  value  for  timber.  I  have  had  occasion  this  last  summer 
to  be  on  the  outskirts  of  the  line  of  spread  of  this  disease  through 
the  State,  and  I  have  seen  numbers  of  these  advance  spots.  It 
seems  that  if  we  can  find  these  spots  and  remove  the  timber,  we 
will  be  doing  much  to  check  the  advance  of  this  disease.  In  tliis 
State  the  fight  is  on,  and  it  is  the  part  of  all  good  citizens  to  co- 
operate in  the  work  that  is  being  done.      (Applause). 

THE  CHAIRMAN :  Dr.  Caroline  Rumbold,  who  is  in  cliarge 
of  important  research  work  at  the  laboratory  of  the  University 
of  Pennsylvania,  will  present  a  paper  in  relation  to  medicinal 
remedies  for  the  chestnut  tree  bark  disease. 


i)t 


THE    POSSIBILITY    OF   A    MEDICINAL    REMEDY    FOR 
CHEST1>IUT  BLIGHT. 


BY   DR.   CAROLINE   RUMBOLD,    IN   CHARGE   OF   THE  PENNSYLVANIA 
CHESTNUT  TREE   BLIGHT  GOaLVIlSSION'S   LABORATORY. 


Mr.  Cliairmaii,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen:  Altliougli  in  the  pro- 
gramme, tlie  title  of  my  remarks  lias  been  given  as  the  ijossibility 
of  a  medicinal  remedy  for  chestnut  blight,  I  much  prefer  to  con- 
fine mj^self  to  a  question  of  medicinal  treatment  as  I  believe  it 
would  limit  me  too  much  were  I  to  try  to  discuss  a  remedy,  a 
cure-all,  one  might  say,  Avlien  we  have  only  started  to  work  out 
the  problems  in  the  case.  My  main  task  is  to  attempt  to  find  the 
relation  between  the  chestnut  tree  and  the  fungus  which  causes 
its  death;  consequently  my  Avork  is  with  individual  trees. 

The  question  of  medicinal  treatment  should  be  considered 
broadly  from  two  sides.  Firstly,  the  side  of  securing  better 
health  conditions  for  the  chestnut  trees,  in  order  that  they  may 
have  the  ability  better  to  resist  the  disease.  This  we  will  call 
preventive  treatment.  Secondly,  the  aspect  of  curative  treat- 
ment. 

Under  the  first  heading  come  the  details  of  water,  food,  light, 
in  other  words,  matters  of  environment.  As  for  water,  there  is 
the  question  as  to  whether  or  not  droughts  of  recent  years  are 
partially  responsible  for  the  Sjoread  of  the  disease  in  the  chestnut 
tree.  I  am  now^  conducting  experiments  in  which  chestnut  trees 
are  being  exposed  to  infection  under  varying  conditions  from  dry- 
ness to  excessive  moisture,  both  of  atmosphere  and  soil.  These 
experiments  may  also  throw  some  ligiit  on  the  report  that  the 
blight  spreads  rapidly  where  trees  are  in  a  crowded  co^^pice, 
while  trees  growing  on  the  ridge  of  a  hill  are  uninfected. 

In  the  matter  of  food,  various  fertilizers  are  being  subjected  to 
tests  on  growing  trees. 

I  am  about  to  start  a  series  of  experiments  in  which  young 
trees  are  to  be  grown  in  solutions  of  different  chemicals,  with 
the  object  of  hastening  the  growth  of  the  bark,  or  of  increasing 


the  amount  of  chlorophyll  in  the  leaves,  in  order  to  find  out 
whether  or  not  such  variations  as  this  might  increase  the  immu- 
nity of  a  healthy  tree.  Under  the  head  of  preventive  treatment 
is  also  to  be  considered  the  care  of  wounds,  etc.  This  subject 
will  be  fully  considered  in  this  conference  by  other  speakers. 
My  own  Avork  in  this  direction  is  confined  to  the  testing  of 
"washes"  submitted  to  the  Pennsylvania  Commission  for  trial. 

If  the  question  of  preventive  treatment  is  still  so  far  from  be- 
ing satisfactorily  answered,  that  of  a  curative  treatment  is  in 
a  more  inchoate  condition.  At  most,  I  can  describe  the  meth- 
ods adopted  in  the  Pennsylvania  Commission  laboratory,  and  in 
which  I  shall  attempt  gradually  to  start  experiments  along  the 
following  lines : — Experiments  to  test  the  relative  vitality  of  the 
mycelium  of  the  fungus,  its  ascosjDores  and  the  conidiospores 
found  in  summer  and  those  formed  on  wood  during  the  winter; 
injection  into  trees  of  chemicals  toxic  to  the  fungus  causing  the 
blight;  tests  as  to  the  immunity  of  different  varieties  of  trees. 
I  have  started  some  experiments  along  two  of  these  lines,  but 
none  is  completed.  According  to  my  experiments  so  far,  the 
ascospores  or  winter  spores  seem  to  have  the  greater  vitality; 
then  follow  the  summer  or  conidiospores.  The  mycelium  and 
those  conidiospores  grown  on  wood  seem  to  be  equally  suscep- 
tible to  poisons.  The  injection  experiments  which  are  to  be 
made  are  those  where  chemicals  are  injected  into  roots  and 
where  hypodermic  injections  are  made  on  the  trunks  of  the 
trees.  These  are  of  necessity  dependent  on  the  experiments 
leading  to  the  discovery  of  chemicals  toxic  to  the  fungus  and 
not  deadly  to  the  tree. 

Experiments  as  to  relative  immunity  of  chestnuts  are  now 
being  conducted  on  two  or  three  varieties  of  trees.  Japanese 
and  American  trees  have  been  inoculated  with  the  blight.  For 
the  purpose  of  such  experimentation,  the  Commission  has  been 
given  the  privileges  of  the  Botanical  Laboratory  of  the  Uni- 
versity of  Pennsylvania,  where  a  special  room  has  been  set 
aside  for  my  work.  A  greenhouse  lias  been  recently  completed, 
in  which  a  number  of  small  cliestnut  trees  are  now  growing. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Tlie  next  paper  is  entitled  "Treatment 
of  Individual  Trees,"  by  Professor  J.  Franklin  Collins,  United 
States  Department  of  Agriculture. 


no 


TKEATMENT  OF  ORCHARD  AND  ORNAMENTAL  TREES. 


BY  TROFESSOR  J.  FRANKLIN  COLLINS,  U.  S.  DEP'T  OF  AGRICULTURE, 

WASHINGTON,    D.   C. 


Mr,  Chairman,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen :  For  the  purpose  of  call- 
ing your  attention  to  one  or  two  points  that  I  want  to  emphasize 
as  a  preliminary  to  my  main  toi3ic,  I  will  quote  the  opening  para- 
graphs of  a  story  published  in  the  fall  of  1910  in  a  well  known 
I)oi)ular  magazine.  The  particular  incident  may  or  may  not 
have  been  true,  it  doesn't  matter,  still,  all  who  have  had  much 
to  do  with  the  chestnut  bark  disease  will  recognize  the  incident 
as  a  fairly  typical  one,  with  perhaps  a  slightly  different  setting. 

The  programme  of  experimentation  thus  outlined  seems  for- 
midable, but  this  work  must  be  thorough  if  any  results  of  value 
are  to  be  obtained.  It  can  be  said  that  nearly  all  of  these  experi- 
ments point  to  the  possibility  of  curing  infected  chestnut  trees. 
Perhaps  by  the  end  of  another  year  the  Pennsylvania  Commis- 
sion laboratory  will  be  able  to  report,  if  less  of  a  forward  looking 
programme,  at  least  more  of  actual  and  valuable  results.  (Ap- 
plause). 

"A  tall,  lean  man,  with  a  grizzled  beard  and  the  air  of  wisdom 
that  goes  with  such  adornment,  strode  across  the  lawn  of  an  old 
fashioned  Connecticut  country  seat,  and  gallantly  lifting  his 
dingy  Panama  hat  to  the  mistress  of  the  manse,  said  in  impres- 
sive tones : 

'Madam,  I  have  just  been  looking  at  your  chestnut  trees.  They 
are  all  covered  witli  scale,  and  are  dying.  I  can  save  them,  if 
you  wish  to  have  it  done.' 

'Can  you?'  said  the  credulous  woman,  looking  up  to  the  dead 
top  of  a  noble  tree.  'I  have  noticed  that  tliere  was  something 
the  matter  witli  them.    TIovv  much  will  it  cost?' 

'Let's  see,'  mnsed  tlie  tree-doctor.  'Eleven  trees,  two  dollars 
apiece.  Well,  I'll  make  it  twenty  dollars  for  the  lot.  Tiiey're 
worth  more  than  that  to  you,  ain't  they  ?' 


GO 

'I  should  say  they  were/  said  the  owner  of  the  estate.  'My 
husband  said  before  he  died  that  he  wouldn't  take  five  hundred 
dollars  for  that  big  chestnut  out  in  front  there.  I  will  willingly 
pay  twenty  dollars  to  have  them  saved.'  'All  right.  Let  me  get 
my  outfit.' 

He  went  to  his  buggy,  brought  back  a  paper  bag  of  powder  and 
a  whitewash  brush,  and  borrowed  a  pail,  some  water  and  a  step- 
ladder.  In  an  hour  he  had  swabbed  the  trees  from  as  high  as  he 
could  reach  from  the  ladder  down  to  the  ground,  pocketed  the 
pleased  widow's  twenty  dollars,  got  into  the  buggy,  said  'Gid- 
dap'  to  his  horse,  and  was  down  at  the  next  door  yard,  swabbing 
more  trees  and  pocketing  more  dollars." 

It  is  true  that  many  unscrupulous  persons  liave  been  making- 
money  in  a  manner  similar  to  the  one  mentioned  in  this  story. 
It  is  true  also  that  the  ravages  of  the  disease,  and  especially  the 
legislative  appropriation  to  combat  it  in  Pennsylvania,  have  sud- 
denly brought  to  light  numerous  unsuspected  infallible  cures  for 
all  the  ills  (including  the  chestnut  bark  disease)  to  which  trees 
are  or  ever  will  become  heir,  if  we  should  judge  only  from  the 
statements  of  the  advertisers  and  inventors. 

Apropos  of  this,  the  Chestnut  Tree  Blight  Commission  of 
Pennsylvania  might  relate  some  of  their  experiences  along  this 
line  that  would  make  more  interesting  reading  than  the  above, 
though  the  incidents  were  less  profitable  financially  to  the  fakirs. 

The  main  point  that  I  want  to  emphasize,  however,  is  that  the 
value  of  ornanmental  trees  cannot,  like  forest  trees,  be  gauged  by 
the  mere  timber  value  of  the  wood,  nor,  like  the  orchard  tree, 
merely  by  the  value  of  the  annual  crop  of  nuts.  The  chestnut 
tree  undoubtedly  attains  its  highest  value  as  an  ornamental  tree. 
You  will  all  recall,  I  am  sure,  certain  estates  where  one  or  more 
chestnut  trees  are  the  main  aesthetic  or  decorative  features.  Per- 
haps the  tree  may  have  been  a  veteran,  famous  in  the  country- 
side, long  before  the  present  owner  purchased  the  land  and  built 
his  domicile.  Oftentimes  the  value  of  the  ornamental  tree  is 
largely  enlmnced  by  its  location  with  reference  to  the  house,  and 
even  more  largely,  at  times,  by  historic  or  ancestral  traditions 
with  which  it  may  have  been,  long  since,  associated.  The  value 
placed  by  the  owner  of  the  estate  upon  such  tree  may  occasion- 
ally be  almost  without  limit. 


61 

The  very  fact  tluit  the  tree  is  of  iiiueh  greater  value  to  its 
owner  than  any  tree  in  the  forest  could  be,  means  that  more 
labor  and  more  care,  can  and  will  be  expended  upon  it,  if  it  needs 
it,  than  would  be  considered  possible,  from  almost  any  economic 
point  of  view,  on  either  the  orchard  or  the  woodland  tree.  Con- 
sequently some  methods  of  combating  the  disease  may  be  profit- 
ably ai^plied  to  ornamental  trees  tliat  would  not  for  a  moment  be 
considered  in  connection  with  a  tree  in  the  forest. 

At  tlie  very  beginning  of  the  experimental  work  undertaken 
by  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture,  this  fact  was 
recognized,  and  has  since  been  kept  in  mind.  Considerable  of 
the  experimental  work  has  had  for  its  main  object  the  solving  of 
the  problem  as  to  whether  or  not  it  will  be  possible  to  eradicate 
or  control  the  disease  on  individual  trees. 

Notwithstanding  the  fact  that  much  of  this  work  has  been 
done  in  chestnut  orchards,  there  are  probably  few  orchard  trees 
that  would  be  worth  the  expense  involved  in  an  attempt  to  save 
them;  however,  on  account  of  their  smaller  size  and  greater  ac- 
cessibility, they  would  be  more  profitable  for  individual  treat- 
ment than  the  forest  tree.  Consequently  these  orchard  trees  be- 
come, in  most  cases,  nothing  more  or  less  than  experimental 
martyrs  for  the  possible  future  benefit  of  their  more  aestheti- 
cally valuable  ornamental  kin. 

It  is  yet  much  too  early  to  make  a  very  definite  statement,  cer- 
tainly not  a  final  report,  upon  the  possibilities  of  being  able  to 
control  fully  the  Chestnut  Bark  Disease  on  ornamental  trees 
without  recourse  to  the  radical  methods  at  present  advocated 
for  cojitrolling  it  in  a  woodland.  Nevertheless,  certain  facts 
have  been  repeatedly  demonstrated  in  the  course  of  the  experi- 
mental work  which  apparently  point  in  a  very  encouraging  man- 
ner to  the  probable  ultimate  accomplishment  of  this  highly  de- 
sira,ble  end  though  perhaps  not  on  a  ygyy  encouraging  economic 
basis,  as  such  a  basis  is  usually  figured. 

I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  some  of  these  facts,  as  well  as 
to  the  bearing  that  they  may  have  upon  control  work  of  tliis 
general  character.  But  in  order  to  make  clear  certain  points  I 
must  first  refer  very  briefly  to  the  general  line  of  treatment 
which  is  being  followed  in  the  experimental  work  mentioned. 


62 

This  lias  l)eeii  fully  described  in  Farmer's  iUilleliii  No.  467,  of 
the  United  States  Dei^artment  of  Agriculture,  and  need  not  be 
considered  in  its  entirety  here. 

For  this  work  the  most  essential  imi^lements  are  a  gouge,  a 
mallet  or  hammer,  a  pot  of  tar  or  paint,  and  a  brush  to  apply  the 
latter;  also  a  whetstone  for  keeping  the  gouge  sharp.  When  a 
diseased  sj)ot  in  the  bark  is  located,  it  is  carefully  cut  out  Avith 
the  gouge  and  mallet,  care  being  taken  to  cut  the  bark  perhaps 
one-half  inch  beyond  the  discolored  area  which  is  usually  so 
prominent  a  characteristic  of  diseased  bark.  It  is  extremely  im- 
portant that  the  gouge  be  kept  scru]3ulously  sharp.  If  it  is  dull, 
the  pressure  required  in  forcing  it  through  the  bark  will  invari- 
ably result  in  sojne  injury  to  the  delicate  cambium  cells  at  the 
edge  of  the  cut.  This  means  that  the  new  growth  will  start 
back  under  the  bark  some  distance,  an  eighth,  a  quarter,  a 
half  inch,  or  even  more,  and  not  close  to  the  edge  of  the  cut, 
where  it  should  start  under  the  most  favorable  conditions. 

During  the  growing  season  the  new  growth  begins  to  lift  the 
old  bark  within  a  week  or  ten  days.  If  this  growth  does  not  be- 
gin close  to  the  edge  of  the  cut,  we  shall  find  in  the  course  of 
three  weeks,  under  the  uplifted  edge  of  the  bark',  the  finest  kind 
of  a  shelter  for  all  kinds  of  small  grubs,  beetles,  etc. ;  all  of  which 
are  well  known  danger  factors  in  connection  with  the  spread 
of  the  disease. 

At  most  seasons  of  the  year,  it  is  highly  important  that  the 
edge  of  the  cut  along  the  cambium  line  be  covered  with  paint  or 
tar  as  promptly  as  possible.  This  is  an  important,  and  often 
essential,  point  in  coaxing  the  new  growth  to  start  closer  to 
the  edge  of  the  cut  than  i!  ever  would  under  perfectly  normal 
conditions.  By  using  a  sharp  gouge  and  promptly  covering  the 
cut  edges,  we  have  many  times  liad  the  satisfaction  of  seeing 
the  new  growth  start  within  a  thirty-second  of  an  inch  of  the 
edge  of  the  cut,  and  be  readily  visible  to  the  unaided  eye  in  less 
than  a  week.  Anything  better  than  this  can  scarcely  be  expected. 
Of  course,  all  portions  of  the  cuts  must  be  finally,  carefully  and 
completely  painted  with  tar,  paint,  or  other  suitable  waterproof 
coating,  and  it  is,  theoretically  at  least,  a  good  plan  to  paint  the 
cut  surface  with  copper  sulphate  or  Bordeaux  before  waterproof 
coating  is  applied. 


63 

In  iliHeii-ssiiig  the  poHsibilities  pro  aiul  con  of  controlling  tbe 
disease  on  inclividnal  trees  after  it  has  become  established,  there 
are  many  factors  that  slionld  be  clearly  nnderstood  and  carefully 
considered.  It  should  be  determined  just  what  bearing  each 
Avill  have  on  the  main  problem,  just  how  each  unfavorable  one 
can  be  overcome  or  at  least  neutralized,  just  how  each  favorable 
one  can  be  made  even  more  helpful  in  the  fight;  all  these,  and 
more,  if  we  are  to  enter  the  combat  fully  equipped.  From 
numerous  points  of  view  it  is  extremely  unfortunate  that  the 
disease  has  spread  with  such  rapidity  from  its  first  known 
centre,  that  nearly  every  person  who  has  been  detailed  by  the 
States  or  the  Federal  Government  to  work  on  the  disease  has, 
of  necessity,  been  obliged  to  devote  most  of  his  energies  to  lo- 
cating or  destroying  infected  trees,  and  relatively  little  or  none 
to  the  research  or  investigation  phase  of  the  problem. 

Everybody  who  has  had  much  to  do  with  the  disease  will 
agree  with  me,  I  am  sure,  when  I  say  that  in  our  efforts  to  con- 
trol it  we  have  been  enormously  handicapped  by  lack  of  just 
such  knowledge  as  comes  only  from  systematic  and  painstaking 
research.  If  we  had  this  knowledge  at  the  present  time  we 
would  undoubtedly  see  with  clearness  many  things  which  are 
now  shrouded  in  the  mistiness  of  uncertainty  or  in  the  darkness 
of  complete  ignorance.  Who,  I  wonder  would  venture  to  foretell 
the  effects  upon  the  whole  question  of  control  if  we  had  spread 
before  us  a  complete,  or  fairly  complete,  positive  knowledge  of 
the  many  important  points  connected  with  the  disease,  about 
which  we  now  know  so  little;  e.  g.,  to  mention  a  few  of  these,  its 
origin,  methods  of  dissemination,  <letailed  effects  upon  the  host, 
ijnmediate  cause  of  the  death  or  the  lost  vitality  of  the  spores, 
resistance  of  spores  and  mycelium  to  toxic  agents,  climatic  in- 
fluence upon  host  and  disease,  the  extent  to  which  it  is  possible 
artificially  to  introduce  various  fluids  into  the  circulatory  sys- 
tem of  a  tree  without  killing  it,  the  extent  to  which  insects  are 
responsible  for  the  spread  of  the  s]wres,  the  precise  knowlege  of 
the  relation  of  birds,  rodents,  wind,  etc.,  to  dissemination  of  the 
spores. 

In  attempting  to  control  the  disease  on  individual  trees,  there 
are  certain  facts,  as  I  have  already  stated,  which  have  been  re- 


64 

peatedly  demonstrated  in  the  (.'oui'se  of  experimental  work,  that 
are  worthy  of  consideration  at  this  time.  I  want  to  mention 
and  very  briefly  discnss  six  of  these : 

(1).     Lateral  or  oblique  conduction. 

There  seems  to  be  a  rather  widespread  (bnt  erroneous)  idea 
that  the  crude  and  elaborated  sap  of  a  tree  can  pass  up  and 
down  the  trunk  or  branch  only  in  a  longitudinal  direction,  that 
is,  lengthwise  of  the  fibres  or  "grain"  of  wood  or  bark,  or  at  most 
with  but  slight  deviation  from  tliis  route.  The  fact  that  it  is 
transferred  almost  entirely  in  a  longitudinal  direction  in  a 
healthy  uninjured  tree  may  be  true  enough  under  normal  con- 
ditions, but  it  is  far  from  true  in  trees  that  have  been  injured 
in  certain  ways,  and,  as  all  students  of  plant  physiology  know, 
not  strictlj^  true  under  perfectly  normal  conditions. 

It  is  a  fact  of  common  knowledge  that  a  tree  will  ordinarily 
cover  or  grow  over,  an  area  of  bare  wood  where  the  bark  has 
been  removed.  It  is  common  knowledge  to  all  observant  persons 
that  these  scars  heal  over  mainly  from  the  sides.  In  all  proba- 
bility this  is  largely  because  they  adjoin  the  uninjured  vessels 
through  which  sap  is  being  conducted  in  the  normal  longitudinal 
direction,  but  doubtless  in  part  also  to  other  causes  to  which  I 
shall  allude  directly.  If  a  partially  or  entirely  healed  over  scar 
should  be  dissected,  it  will  be  found  that  in  the  layers  of  wood 
formed  immediately  after  the  injury  the  fibres  are  curved  out- 
ward around  the  injury,  and  continue  in  a  nearly  longitudinal 
direction  both  above  and  below  the  scar.  When  the  scar  is  par- 
tially covered,  the  newly  formed  fibres  are  straighter,  and  finally 
after  the  scar  is  entirely  covered,  the  youngest  fibres  will  be 
found  to  have  assumed  their  normal  longitudinal  direction,  or 
very  nearly  so. 

If  it  were  not  for  this  possibility  of  oblique  conduction,  a  tree 
that  had  a  large  lesion  extending  half  way  around  the  trunk 
on  the  north  side,  for  instance,  and  an  equally  large  one  on  the 
south  side,  either  above  or  below  the  other,  would,  to  all  intents 
and  purposes,  be  girdled. 

In  the  chestnut  tree,  the  angle  from  the  perpendicular  to 
which  these  fibres  can  be  made  to  curve,  as  a  result  of  experimen- , 
tal  cuttings,  may  seem  surprisingly  great.     In  one  instance  the 


65 

writer  very  nearly  succeeded  in  an  atLempt  to  force  this  new 
growth  to  prodnce  fibres  at  right  angles  to  the  normal  direction : 
i.  e.,  they  were  made  to  bend  more  than  80  degrees. 

The  fact  that  new  fibres  can,  if  necessary,  be  formed  at  snch 
a  great  angle  from  the  normal  is  of  very  great  advantage  to  the 
chestnnt  in  the  process  of  healing  over  scars  made,  for  example, 
by  cutting  out  diseased  spots  in  the  bark.  As  food  is  conveyed 
through  a  plant  in  very  dilute  watery  solutions,  it  is  necessary 
that  a  great  amount  of  sap  be  circulated  or  conveyed  to  a  point 
where  any  considerable  amount  of  food  is  demanded.  If  the 
tubes  which  primarily  convey  sap  should  be  severed,  as  when  a 
diseased  spot  has  been  cut  out  of  the  bark,  the  free  transfer  of 
sap  is  at  most  seasons  of  the  year  immediately  reduced  to  a  mini- 
mum in  the  severed  or  "dead  ends"  of  these  sap  conducting  tubes, 
which  from  the  point  of  view  of  circulation,  now  hold  about 
the  same  relation  to  the  uninjured  tubes  that  the  stagnant  arm 
of  a  river  does  to  the  main  river. 

So  far  as  the  actual  food  is  concerned,  it  is  obvious  that  the 
amount  of  sap  necessary  to  supply  the  requisite  food  cannot 
reach  the  upper  and  lower  edges  of  a  scar  by  means  of  the  dead 
ends  of  the  conducting  tubes  as  readily  and  rapidly  as  at  the 
edges  where  there  is  a  continuous  stream  of  sap  passing  along 
the  uninjured  tubes. 

Oftentimes  just  below  a  broad  scar  which  reaches  to  the  wood, 
and  less  often  above  it,  a  triangular  piece  of  bark  will  die.  This 
is  due  directly  or  indirectly  to  the  inability  or  great  difflculty 
that  the  sap  has  in  reaching  these  places.  In  order  to  preclude 
the  possibility  of  the  bark  dying  back  either  above  or  below  a 
scar,  and  thus  furnishing  favorable  shelters  for  insects,  the  top 
and  bottom  of  the  scar  should  be  pointed  instead  of  allowed  to 
remain  abrupt  or  rounded.  Under  ordinary  conditions  it  takes 
no  longer  for  a  scar  six  inches  long  and  an  inch  wide  to  heal 
over  completely  than  it  does  for  one  an  inch  long  and  an  inch 
wide,  simply  because  the  healing  over  depends  almost  entirely 
upon  the  growth  at  the  sides  of  the  scar.  x\s  I  have  already  in- 
timated, all  cuts  should  be  made  with  instruments  that  are  kept 
very  sharp. 

(2).     Mycelium  in  the  wood. 


00 

The  mycelium  of  the  fungus  almost  always  produces  a  very 
characteristic  mottled  fau-like  appearance  iu  the  bark,  and  ap- 
pears to  penetrate  through  the  tissues  of  the  bark  but  a  short 
distance,  if  at  all,  beyond  this  discolored  area.  The  mycelium 
also  penetrates  the  sapwood  very  freely,  when  the  disease  reaches 
as  deep  as  the  Avood,  as  it  generally  does  sooner  or  later;  but, 
unlike  its  effect  in  the  bark,  no  pronounced  discoloration  is  pro- 
duced in  the  wood,  and  it  is  impossible  to  determine  with  the 
unaided  eye  the  approximate  limits  of  the  mycelium,  as  in  the 
case  of  the  bark. 

In  all  efforts  to  control  the  disease  without  destroying  the 
tree,  it  is  of  course  necessary  to  gouge  out  this  disease  infected 
sapwood.  The  depth  to  which  it  is  necessary  to  remove  it  can- 
not at  present  be  definitely  stated,  as  insufficient  time  has 
elapsed  to  demonstrate  this  point  experimentally.  Many  cut- 
tings, some  with  the  sai3Wood  i)artially  removed  from  beneath 
a  lesion,  and  others  with  all  of  it  relnoved,  are  now  being  watched 
for  results.  However,  in  a  diseased  spot  from  three  to  four 
inches  in  diameter  apparently  at  least  three  annual  layers  of 
wood  in  the  centre  of  the  diseased  spot  must  be  removed. 

Of  course  where  sapwood  is  cut,  enormous  numbers  of  minute 
tubes,  which  conduct  the  crude  sap  from  the  roots  through  the 
trunk  and  branches  to  the  leaves,  are  severed,  and,  should  the 
cutting  happen  to  have  been  done  during  warm,  dry  weather, 
it  often  happens  that  one  or  more  branches  directly  above  the 
cut-out  area  Avill  show  much  wilted  leaves  Avithin  an  hour  or 
two.  This  is  a  direct  and  inevitable  result  of  the  suppression, 
from  any  cause  Avhatsoever,  of  a  considerable  portion  of  the  sup- 
ply of  water  for  the  leaves. 

Considerable  careful  judgment  may  at  times  have  to  be  used 
Avhen  making  cuts  of  this  nature,  and  occasionally  it  may  be 
Avise  to  remove  one  or  more  healthy  limbs,  or  perhaps  to  strip  the 
foliage  partially  from  a  branch  situated  just  above  a  place  where 
much  sapAvood  has  been  removed.  This  Avill  at  least  tend  to  pre- 
vent wilting,  Avhich  if  excessive,  may  result  in  the  subsequent 
death  of  the  branch. 

(3).     Preservation  of  exposed  Avood  from  decay. 

If  exposed  surfaces  of  wood  are  left  Avith  no  protective  cover- 
ing they  soon  become  weathered,  dried,  checked,  and  easily  in- 
fected with  fungi,  canning  decay  of  the  Avood,    Iu  the  chestnut. 


07 

moreover,  there  is  the  additional  danger  of  infection  from  the 
spores  of  Dlaportlic  parasitica.  In  order  to  reduce  the  chances 
of  infection  from  wood  rotting  and  other  fungi,  it  has  been  the 
prevailing  custom  for  many  years  in  this  country  as  well  as 
abroad,  to  paint  all  exposed  surfaces  of  wood  with  tar  or  lead 
paint.  Judging  from  our  own  experience  perhaps  these  are  as 
good  general  preparations  for  this  purpose  as  any  that  we  care 
to  recommend  at  this  time,  though  they  are  not  ideal  and  they 
do  not  prevent  the  checking  of  the  wood,  Morever,  they  must 
be  renewed  from  time  to  time  in  order  to  accomi^lish  permanent 
good.  Creosote  is  excellent  for  a  preliminary  coating,  but  it 
sinks  into  the  wood  readily  and  apparently  has  water^Droof  quali- 
ties of  only  temporary  value.  It  should  always  be  followed 
(within  a  few  days,  for  example)  with  some  thick  or  heavy  coat- 
ing, such  as    tar  or  paint. 

For  preventing  the  drying  back  of  the  cambium  layer  at  the 
edge  of  a  cut,  we  have  so  far  found  nothing  better  than  orange 
shellac.  This  does  not  long  remain  a  waterproof  covering  under 
ordinary  conditions,  and  should,  as  in  the  case  of  creosote,  be 
covered  with  a  heavy  coating  of  paint  or  tar,  sa}^  within  two  or 
three  weeks  after  it  is  applied.  jNIanj'  other  preparations  for 
covering  exposed  wood  have  been  tried,  but  those  mentioned  ap- 
pear to  have  been  the  most  satisfactory  from  the  point  of  view 
of  our  experiments  on  ornamental  and  orchard  chestnut  trees. 

(4).     Sanitation. 

In  cutting  out  diseased  spots  in  the  trunk  or  branches  of 
chestnut  trees,  the  chips  should  be  carefully  gathered  in  papers, 
or  better,  paper  bags,  and  destroyed  by  burning.  Tliey  should 
not  be  left  scattered  about  on  the  ground.  In  other  words,  sani- 
tation is  one  of  the  essentials  for  success  in  this  kind  of  work, 
just  as  it  is  in  the  case  of  diseases  of  human  beings.  In  all  of 
our  experiments  with  the  disease  on  one  particular  plot  the 
chips  were  left  where  they  fell.  No  attempt  was  made  to  de- 
stroy them.  Later  many  of  these  chips  were  examined  and  ap- 
parently good,  though  dormant,  fruiting  pustules  were  present  in 
the  majority  of  cases.  To  take  one  particular  case :  In  March, 
101],  some  diseased  spots,  with  good  fruiting  pustules,  were  cut 
from  a  chestnut  tree  and  the  chips  left  on  the  ground  in  a  sunny 
exposed  place  on  a  dry  hill-top.    These  remained  on  the  ground 


08 

tlirouglioul  tlie  spring,  tlirougU  the  liot  dry  weather  of  early 
July,  and  the  drought  of  July  and  August.  lu  early  September, 
two  days  after  the  almost  unbroken  week  of  rain  during  the  lat- 
ter part  of  August,  these  chips  were  agaiu  examined,  and  on  a 
few  of  them  which  were  composed  entirely  of  bark,  two  or  three 
iuches  long  aiid  half  as  wide,  many  spore  threads  were  found. 
These,  remember,  from  chips  tliat  had  been  lying  on  the  ground 
for  more  than  five  months  through  the  hot  summer  drought.  Pos- 
sibly this  may  be  regarded  as  an  extreme  case,  but  in  any  event 
it  clearly  emphasized  the  necessity  of  extreme  care  in  destroying 
all  diseased  bark,  chips,  etc.,  in  all  attempts  to  control  the  dis- 
ease. Again,  extreme  cases  of  the  sort  mentioned  are  often  the 
very  ones  tliat  must  be  guarded  against.  In  certain  instances  a 
gasoline  torch  has  proved  an  efficient  adjunct  for  the  burning  out 
of  the  diseased  spot  and  thus  destroying  the  fungus,  whether  or 
not  followed  by  the  gouge  and  mallet. 

(5).     Insects. 

Soon  after  beginning  work  on  tlie  disease  in  1908,  our  atten- 
tion was  irresistibly  drawn  to  the  evident  intimate  relation  that 
insects  bore  to  the  spread  of  the  disease.  It  is  singularly  inter- 
esting to  note  that  practically  every  person  who  has  been  work- 
ing on  the  disease  in  the  field  for  any  length  of  time  has,  sooner 
or  later,  been  strongly  impressed  with  this  very  apparent  inter- 
relationship between  insects  and  the  chestnut  bark  disease.  Per- 
sonally, we  have  made  many  observations  upon  the  topic,  but  a^^ 
this  Avork  properly  belongs  to  another  Bureau  of  the  U.  S.  Dept. 
of  Agriculture,  we  have  limited  our  work  to  observations.  Here 
is  a  phase  of  the  work  that  could  easily  influence  the  plans  of 
control  to  a  large  extent  if  we  knew  absolutely  the  relation  of 
insects  to  the  disease.  It  is  gratifying  to  know  that  the  Commis- 
sion has  an  expert  entomologist  already  at  work  on  this  particu- 
lar part  of  the  general  problem. 

(6).     Immunity. 

From  what  is  now  known  regarding  the  spread  and  virulence 
of  the  Chestnut  Bark  Disease,  there  seems  little  immediate 
promise  of  individual  trees  or  variations  of  the  American  Sweet 
Chestnut  (Castanea  dentata)  developing  immunity.  As  this 
species  is  the  only  forest  tree  of  the  genus  in  the  country,  it 


G9 

would  apiDear  that  the  question  of  immunity  can  have  practically 
no  direct  or  immediate  bearing  upon  the  saving  of  our  forest 
chestnut  trees. 

At  the  present  time  there  is  every  prospect  that  we  can  rea- 
sonably expect  to  procure  immune  pure  bred  varieties  or  si)ecies 
of  chestnuts  from  northern  Asia  and  Japan.  Indeed,  we  already 
know  that  some  of  tlie  Japanese  and  Korean  chestnuts  are  al- 
most, if  not  quite,  immune  to  the  disease.  I  think  it  is  safe  to 
say,  where  Japanese  varieties  have  been  killed  by  this  disease, 
that  in  more  than  ninet}^  per  cent,  of  the  cases  which  have  come 
under  our  personal  observation,  the  trees  have  been  grafted  with 
Japanese  scions  on  American  or  European  stocks,  and  the  Jap- 
anese trees  have  been  killed  by  girdling  below  the  graft.  We 
have  repeatedly  observed  such  cases  where  the  stock  has  been 
absolutely  covered  with  disease  up  to  the  graft  line,  with  not  a 
sign  of  it  anywhere  on  the  Jajjanese  portion.  Naturally,  this  fact 
in  itself  is  strong  proof  of  the  immune  nature  of  these  particular 
Japanese  varieties.  As  these  highly  resistant,  or  perhaps  im- 
mune, trees  are  with  us  small,  and  the  nuts,  though  often  huge, 
are  of  inferior  quality,  their  value  will  be  almost  entirely  as  or- 
namental trees,  and  probably  never,  in  our  time  at  least,  of  any 
value  in  replacing  the  American  chestnut.  If  the  better  flavored 
native  and  Paragon  nuts  should  disappear  from  the  market,  we 
would  doubtless  soon  turn  to  the  inferior  Japanese  nut  as  a  sub- 
stitute. 

In  recent  years  much  has  been  accomplished  along  the  line  of 
breeding  hybrids  or  strains  of  plants  which  are  not  only  often 
fine  in  quality,  but  also  highly  resistant  to  disease.  The  results 
that  have  been  attained  in  this  direction  within  a  comparatively 
few  years  are  truly  gratifying,  but  tlie  future  will  witness 
greater  results.  Tliere  is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  we  may  even- 
tually see  an  immune  hybrid  clieslnut  tliat  will  rival  the  Ameri- 
can sweet  chestnut  in  flavor  of  tlie  nut,  and  the  Paragon  in 
size. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  will  recall  that,  while  we  were 
listening  to  the  addresses  in  response  to  the  remarks  of  Gover- 
nor Tener,  the  gentleman  from  Connecticut  stated  that  he  had 


70 

some  results  which  he  desired  to  present  to  us  at  sometime  dur- 
ing the  Conference.  It  has  been  suggested  to  me  that,  as  it  is 
a  little  late,  it  would  be  best  to  x>ut  over  all  general  discussion 
until  this  evening,  when  we  are  to  have  only  one  set  paper  and 
at  this  time  to  call  upon  the  gentleman  from  Connecticut,  Pro- 
fessor Clinton,  who  has  his  results  in  the  form  of  two  short 
papers.  If  that  meets  with  your  approval,  then,  we  will  ask 
Professor  Clinton  to  speak  at  this  time.  He  is  not  "a  long,  lean 
man  with  a  grizzled  beard,'-  but  he  has  some  other  points  that 
will  commend  themselves  to  us.     (Applause). 

PROFESSOR  GEORGE  P.  CLINTON  (Botanist,  Connecti- 
cut Agricultural  Station)  :  Mr.  Chairman,  Ladies  and  Gentle- 
men :  The  first  paper  that  I  will  x^resent  is  written  by  Profes- 
sor Farlow,  of  Harvard  University.  For  the  benefit  of  those 
who  do  not  know  Professor  Farlow,  I  will  say  that  he  is  the 
oldest  mycologist  in  this  country,  has  had  the  greatest  experience 
in  studying  fungi  and  has  some  of  the  best  herbaria  dealing  with 
fungi,  esj)ecially  those  bound  in  book  form,  known  as  Exsiccati, 
in  the  world.  He  took  up  the  study  of  the  nomenclature  of  the 
chestnut  blight  disease,  at  my  request,  about  two  years  ago.  He 
has  not  supplied  a  title  to  the  pa^^er  which  I  will  now  present. 

PAPER  BY   PROFESSOR  W.   G.   FARLOW,    HARVARD   UNIVERSITY, 

MASSACHUSETTS. 

The  cause  of  the  disease  of  chestnut  trees  j)revalent  in  our 
Eastern  States  is  ascribed  to  the  growth  of  the  fungus  named 
Diaporthe  parasitica  by  Murrill  in  1906.  If  as  is  generally  be- 
lieved, this  fungus  is  the  cause  of  the  disease,  in  searching  for 
the  best  method  of  combating  it  we  not  only  should  obtain  all  the 
information  possible  in  regard  to  the  microscopic  structure  and 
pathogenic  action  of  tlie  fungus,  but  we  should  see  whether  we 
may  not  get  some  practical  suggestions  from  what  has  been 
written  in  regard  to  the  distribution  and  j)athological  action  of 
fungi  which  are  most  nearly  related  to  our  chestnut  fungus. 

The  first  question  Ave  may  ask  is:  Is  Diaporthe  parasitica,  as 
at  first  supposed,  really  a  species  new  to  science?  If  so,  is  it 
a  native  species  which  has  hitherto  escaped  the  notice  of  our  my- 
cologists, or  has  it  been  introduced  from  some  other  country? 
In  disease  due  to  fungi  the  presumption  is  always  in  favor  of  the 


71 

theory  that  they  have  been  introduced  when  they  produce  sudden 
and  virulent  epidemics,  as  in  the  case  of  the  ijotato  rot.  The 
presumption,  I  say,  is  in  favor  of  this  theory,  but  a  presumption 
it  should  be  borne  in  mind  is  not  a  certainty.  If  Diaportfie  para- 
sitica is  not  a  si)ecies  new  to  science,  what  is  it,  and  where  did 
it  come  from?  The  microscopic  structure  of  the  chestnut  tree 
fungus  as  we  now  know  it,  is  Avell  known,  and  its  habit  and  its 
reproductive  organs  have  been  described  and  figured  in  many 
publications  accessible  to  everyone.  What,  however,  is  not  so 
generally  known  is  what  has  been  written  in  times  iDast  on  fungi 
found  on  chestnut  trees  in  different  countries,  and  a  review  of 
what  is  known  to  mycologists  in  this  connection  may  be  instruc- 
tive although,  it  must  be  admitted,  the  subject  is  not  yerj  easy 
to  follow.  On  account  of  dried  specimens  in  the  older  herbaria 
and  a  summary  of  the  often  obscure  and  conflcting  descriiDtions 
to  be  found  in  old  treatises,  even  if  desx^erately  dull,  will  enable 
us  to  form  certain  practical  conclusions. 

When  I  first  received  fresh  specimens  of  the  fruiting  fungus 
of  the  chestnut  tree  I  Avas  struck  by  their  great  resemblance  to 
what  is  generally  known  in  American  herbaria  as  Endotliia 
gi/rosa.  Unfortunately  most  of  the  specimens  of  that  species  in 
herbaria  are  sterile  and  from  the  habit  alone  one  cannot  be  sure 
of  the  species  of  a  fungus  of  this  group.  The  fresh  fungus  also 
recalled  a  specimen  I  had  seen  in  an  Italian  collection,  and  on 
looking  it  up  and  comparing  it  miscroscopically  with  the  fresh 
material,  I  found  the  two  to  l)e  identical.  The  gross  structure 
and  the  characters  of  the  spores  and  asci  were  the  same  in  both. 
The  Italian  specimen  to  which  I  refer  is  jS'o.  986,  First  Series  of 
the  Erhario  Crittogamico  Italiana,  issued  in  18G3.  The  label 
states  that  the  fungus  grew  on  chestnut  trunks  at  Locarno  on 
Lake  Maggiore,  where  it  was  collected  by  Daldini  in  1862.  The 
name  there  given  is  Endotliia  radicalism  but  the  question  of  the 
name  need  not  be  considered  at  present.  As  otlier  botanists 
have  examined  the  specimen  just  mentioned  and  agree  as  to 
the  identity  of  the  Endotliia  radicalis  and  the  Diaporthe  parasi- 
tica, some  having  already  expressed  tlieir  opinion  in  print,  we 
may  state  definitely  that  our  American  chestnut  tree  fungus  does 
not  appear  to  be  new  l)ut  to  have  been  known  on  chestimts  in 
Italy  fifty  years  ago. 


72 

It  may  be  well  to  glance  at  what  has  been  written  on  the  sub- 
ject in  Italy.  The  earliest  reference  known  to  me  is  that  of  Rn- 
dolphi  in  Linnaea,  1829,  where  the  Endothia  is  said  to  grow  on 
Quercus  Ilex,  Q.  pubeas  and  Castauea  vesca.  Later  accounts 
were  given  by  Cesati  and  De  Notaris  in  1863  in  their  Schema  and 
the  Sphaeriacei  Italica,  where  there  is  a  good  description  and  a 
rather  crude  figure  apparently  drawn  from  somewhat  immature 
specimens,  for  the  spores  are  rej)resented  as  one  celled,  although 
in  the  description  they  are  said  to  be  sometimes  obscurely  two- 
parted.  The  fungus  is  said  to  be  common  on  dried  branches  and 
denuded  roots  of  oaks  and  chestnuts  in  Northern  Italy  and  to 
occur  also  on  elms. 

Italian  specimens  were  distributed  in  Rabenhorst's  Herbarium 
Mycologicum,  Thuemenis,  Mycotheca  Universalis  and  Saccardo 
Mj^cotheca  Veneta ;  but  in  the  copies  which  I  have  examined  the 
specimens  had  spermogonia  but  no  asci.  The  most  recent  notice 
of  the  fungus  in  Italy  is  that  of  Traverso  in  Flora  Italica  Cryp- 
togama,  in  1906,  who  uses  the  name  Endothia  gyrosa.  It  is  said 
to  grow  on"  Aesculus,  Alnus,  Carpinus,  Castauea,  Corylus,  Fagus, 
Juglans,  and  Quercus,  and  to  occur  not  only  in  Europe  and 
North  America  but  even  in  Ceylon  and  New  Zealand. 

We  have  early  notices  of  the  fungus  in  France.  In  1830  Fries 
stated  in  Linnaea  that  he  had  received  it  from  that  country  and 
Tnlasne  in  his  Carpologia,  Vol.  II,  1863,  gave  a  long  notice  of 
the  fungus,  which  he  says  grows  on  Carpinus,  with  critical  notes 
on  the  synonymy  of  the  species.  In  1870  Fuckel  recorded  its 
appearance  as  rare  on  Alnus  at  Oestrich  in  Nassau,  and  Winter, 
in  1886,  in  Rabenhorst's  Crytogamen  Flora,  stated  that  the  En- 
dothia grew  on  different  deciduous  trees  in  Germany.  The 
records  of  the  fungus  in  France  and  Gerinany  are  less  satisfac- 
tory than  its  record  in  Italy,  and  the  specimens  distributed  from 
the  former  countries  in  exsiccati  are  few  and  poor. 

From  this  rather  long  account  of  the  history  of  the  chestnut 
fungus  in  Europe,  Ave  may  draw  the  following  conclusions :  Our 
chestnut  tree  fungus  is  widely  spread  in  Europe  and  is  common 
in  Northern  Italy,  where  it  was  first  noticed  as  long  ago  as  1829. 
It  is  of  interest  to  notice  that  writers  are  very  generally  agreed 
that  it  grows  on  bark,  dried  l)ranclies,  and  dead  roots,  rather 
than  on  living  branches,  and  the  hosts  on  wliich  it  is  said  to  grow 


73 

are  not  merely  cliestnuts  and  oaks  but  a  considerable  number  of 
deciduous  trees.  Yet,  although  the  fungus  has  been  so  well 
known  in  Italy,  where  it  is  in  some  places  certainly  common, 
there  is  no  r^ecord  whatever  of  any  serious  disease  of  the  chestnut 
due  to  it.  The  chestnut,  which  is  a  tree  of  great  economical  im^ 
portance  in  Italy,  is  subject  to  a  good  many  diseases  which  have 
been  carefully  studied  by  the  Italian  pathologists  but,  so  far  as 
I  know,  not  one  has  suggested  that  any  is  due  to  the  Endothia. 
Were  it  a  fact  that  the  Endothia,  whatever  specific  name  we 
please  to  call  it,  is  a  species  endemic  in  Italy  but  not  found  in 
North  America  until  the  aj^pearance  of  the  present  epidemic,  Ave 
could  understand  wliy  the  fungus  might  cause  a  serious  disease 
in  this  country  although  it  causes  no  trouble  in  Italy,  for,  if  in- 
fected plants  were  imported  from  Europe,  the  fungus,  as  in  other 
well  known  cases,  might  be  transferred  to  our  native  chestnuts 
which  unlike  the  chestnuts  of  Italy  have  not  become  immune. 

Italian  botanists  did  not  and  do  not  regard  their  chestnut  En- 
dothia as  merely  an  endemic  si:)ecies  but  consider  it  to  be  the 
same  as  Spliaeria  radical  is  described  by  Fries  in  1828  from 
North  American  specimens  collected  by  Schweinitz.  We  learn 
from  Schweinitz,  in  his  North  American  Fungi,  that  the  species 
was  very  rare  on  roots  of  Fagus  in  North  Carolina.  The  syn- 
onymy is  too  complicated  to  be  followed  here  but  some  reasons 
why  it  is  so  complicated  should  be  stated.  Prior  to  the  publica- 
tion of  S.  radicaUs,  Schweinitz  had  in  1822  described  a  ^plmeria 
gyrosa  from  North  Carolina  said  to  grow  on  Fagus  and  Juglans. 
Later  Fries  made  this  species  the  type  of  a  new  genus,  Endothia. 
The  earlier  Italian  writers  regarded  aS'.  gyrosa  and  S.  radicaUs 
as  two  distinct  species,  apparently  basing  their  opinion  on  the 
fact  that  Fries  placed  the  two  in  different  sections  of  the  old 
genus  Hpliacria  rather  than  on  an  examination  of  American 
specimens  of  the  two  species.  Traverso  and  some  later  writers, 
however,  consider  that  the  so-called  two  species  are  really  only 
two  different  stages  of  a  single  species.  It  appears  to  me  that 
their  opinion  is  cpiite  possibly  correct,  but  the  (piestion  can  be 
settled  definitely  only  by  an  examination  of  original  Schweinit- 
zian  specimens.  Thanks  to  the  kindness  of  Dr.  SteAvartson 
Brown  I  have  been  alloAved  to  examine  the  specimens  in  the 
SchAveiiiitzian  Herbai-iuiii  in  the  Academy  of  Nnliii-al  Sciences 


74 

in  Pliiladelpliia,  and  I  liave  also  examined  Scliweinitzian  speci- 
mens in  the  Curtis  Herbarium  at  Harvard.  Unfortunately  I 
have  not  as  yet  succeeded  in  finding  a  Schweinitzian  specimen  of 
aS,  radicalis  which  shows  ascospores;  possibly  none  of  the  so- 
called  S.  radicalis  has  ascospores,  but  I  am  not  yet  certain  that 
that  is  the  fact.  Specimens  supposed  to  be  ^.  gyrosa  are  com- 
mon in  American  herbaria  and  have  frequently  been  distributed 
in  diilerent  sets  of  exsiccati.  Unfortunately  of  the  considerable 
iiumber  of  specimens  I  have  examined,  the  greater  part  were 
sterile  although  judging  by  the  habit  alone,  they  might  very  well 
be  aS'.  gyrosa.  I  have,  however,  seen  no  specimens  in  the  older 
American  herbaria  where  the  fungus  supposed  to  be  ^.  gyrosa 
was  certainly  growing  on  chestnut.  In  general  the  hosts  were 
not  specificially  stated  but  a  large  per  cent,  were  evidently  on 
oak.  There  is  a  fungus  common  on  oak  in  the  Southern  states 
which  has  the  external  habit  of  Endothia,  and  appears  fre- 
quently in  herbaria  as  Endothia  gyrosa.  An  examination  of  a 
number  of  fertile  specimens  on  oak  from  different  localities,  hav- 
ing all  the  appearance  of  being  E.  gyrosa,  has  shown  that  the  as- 
cospores are  unlike  those  of  the  Endothia  of  Northern  Italy  or 
like  those  of  what  is  called  Diaporthe  parasitica.  Stated  in 
words  the  differences  may  seem  to  be  slight  but  in  practice  one 
can  .without  difficulty  distinguish  the  two.  The  spores  of  the 
form  on  oak  have  hardl}^  half  the  diameter  of  those  of  the  chest- 
nut and  the  spores  are  nearly  linear.  Naturally  no  definite  ac- 
count of  the  spores  was  given  by  Schweinitz  and  therefore  ex- 
cept by  an  examination  of  authentic  specimens  we  are  not  able 
to  say  whether  the  form  on  oak  should  be  considered  the  true  /?. 
gyrosa  of  Schweinitz  or  not.  As  I  have  said,  I  have  not  yet  been 
able  to  complete  my  examination  of  original  material,  not  as  yet 
having  found  mature  ^.  radicalis. 

Although  further  examination  is  necessary  before  expressing 
a  final  opinion,  certain  facts  seem  to  be  settled.  Our  form  on 
chestnut  called  Diaporthe  parasitica,  described  in  1906,  and  tliat 
on  chestnut  in  Italy  collected  by  Daldini  in  18G2  are  identical  as 
far  as  can  be  determined  by  a  study  of  the  dried,  herbarium 
specimens  which  we  have  been  able  to  examine.  As  far  as  I  have 
been  able  to  examine  the  older  herbaria,  I  liave  found  no  speci- 
men of  Endothia  on  chestuut  in  North  America.    Tliere  is,  how- 


75 

ever,  an  EDdothia  on  oak  not  uncommonly  found  in  fruit  in  the 
Southern  States  which  has  spores  which  seem  to  me  to  be  speci- 
fically different  from  those  found  on  the  chestnut.  The  question, 
however,  is  still  open  as  to  whether  the  form  on  chestnuts  may 
not  also  be  found  on  oaks  on  further  examination.  If  so,  how- 
ever, it  must  be  less  common,  if  I  may  judge  by  the  considerable 
number  of  specimens  I  have  examined,  than  the  form  with  nar- 
row, linear  spores. 

DE.  JOHN  MICKLEBOROUGH,  of  Brooklyn:  Mr.  Chair- 
man :  I  would  suggest  that  Professor  Clinton  be  given  the  first 
opportunity  to  present  his  own  paper  the  first  thing  this  evening. 
We  have  had  a  very  long  session,  and  I  tliink  the  time  has  come 
for  adjournment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  f^eems  an  excellent  ^Hsuggestion. 
What  is  the  pleasure  of  the  Conference?  Is  there  objection  to 
it?  If  not,  then.  Professor  Clinton,  if  it  is  agreeable  to  you,  we 
will  ask  you  to  i)resent  the  other  paper  the  first  thing  this  even- 
ing. 

The  Chair  will  remind  you,  gentlemen,  that  you  are  invited 
to  register  and  he  would  state,  also,  that  the  Committee  on  Reso- 
lutions will  be  announced  to-night.  We  will  then  now  stand  in 
recess  until  sharp  at  eight  o'clock,  when  we  will  again  meet  in 
this  chamber. 


EVENING  SESSION. 


Tuesday,  February  20,  1912,  eight  o'clock  P.  M. 
THE  CHAIRMAN:     Gentlemen,  the -meeting  will  please  be 
in  order.    We  will  first  hear  the  short  paper  tliat  we  had  expected 
to  hear  at  the  close  of  the  afternoon  session,  by  Professor  Clin- 
ton.    (Ai)plause). 


SOME    FACTS   AND    THEORIES    CONCERNING   CHEST- 
NUT BT.IGHT. 


BY  PROrESSOR  GEORGE  P.  CLINTON,  BOTANIST,  AGRTGITETTTRAL  EX- 
PERIMENT STATION,    CONNECTICUT. 


Mr.  Chairman,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen: — 

At  a  recent  meetijig  of  tlie  Auierican  Pliyt<»])iini<)l()gical   So- 


7G 

ciety  held  in  Washington,  D.  C,  dnriug  a  discnssiou  of  tlie  chest- 
nut blight  problem,  the  writer  made  the  following  predictions: 

(1).  That  chestnut  blight  was  not  imported  into  the  United 
States  from  Japan;  not  saying  that  it  does  not  occur  in  the  lat- 
ter country. 

(2).     That  it  is  a  native  American  species. 

(3).     That  it  is  a  previously  described  species. 

(4).  Tbat  there  is  evident  relationship  between  its  rise  and 
spread  in  this  country  and  weather  conditions. 

(5).  That  it  is  impossible  to  eradicate  it  by  the  cutting  out 
method. 

(G).  That  there  will  in  time  be  a  decline  in  its  prominence 
due  to  natural  conditions. 

(7).  Unpublished — by  wliich  was  meant  that  the  fungus  oc- 
curs in  Europe. 

I  propose  here  to  discuss  some  of  these  predictions,  thus  giv- 
ing my  reasons  for  j^resenting  them.  There  have  been  advocated 
two  almost  diametrically  opposed  views  concerning  the  chestnut 
blight  in  this  country. 

The  first  of  these,  if  I  understand  it  correctly,  assumes  that 
the  chestnut  blight  is  a  recently  introduced  disease,  api)arently 
from  Japan,  and  that  its  spread  and  destructiveness  here  have 
not  been  at  all  influenced  by  weather  conditions ;  that  if  left  un- 
controlled, it  will  continue  to  spread  and  devastate  our  forests 
until  they  are  practically  ruined. 

The  second  view,  advanced  by  the  writer,  assumes  that  the 
chestnut  blight  is  a  native  American  fungus,  apparently  also 
indigenous  to  Europe,  and  that  weather  and  other  unfavorable 
conditions,  which  have  weakened  the  vitality  of  the  chestnut 
trees  in  the  northeastern  United  States,  have  had  much  to  do 
with  its  sudden,  destructive,  and  wide-spread  appearance,  and 
that  it  will  not  necessarily  wipe  out  all  of  our  chestnuts,  as  it 
is  likely  to  decline  gradually  witli  the  disappearance  of  tlie  fac- 
tors that  have  favored  its  rise  into  prominence. 

Between  these  two  extremes  there  are  those  wlio  take  one  or 
the  other  view  in  modified  form,  or  agree  in  part  with  both.  It 
is  highly  important  that  the  truth  of  the  matter  be  ascertained, 
since  u]>on  the  nature  of  the  fungus  and  the  manner  of  its  appear- 


77. 

auce  iu  this  country  depend  in  large  nieasiire  the  practicability 
or  impracticability  of  the  only  method  now  advocated  for  its 
control,  namely,  the  cutting  out  and  destruction  of  the  diseased 
trees. 

Before  proceeding  to  a  discussion  of  the  reasons  why  I  hold 
the  view  I  do,  let  us  consider  for  a  moment  the  apparent  reasons 
for  the  other  view.  So  far  as  I  can  make  them  out,  they  arc  as 
follows : 

(1).  Tlie  trouble  appeared  suddenly  and  seriously,  and  as  it 
is  unusual  for  a  fungus  thus  to  spring  up  in  a  country  where 
it  lias  never  been  known  before,  it  is  presumably  an  imported 
one. 

(2).  But  such  a  serious  disease  of  chestnuts  has  never  been 
known  before  in  anj^  other  country.  However,  insects  and  weeds 
and  fungi  also,  that  have  been  comparatively  inconspicuous  in 
their  native  countries,  when  introduced  into  a  new  country, 
sometimes  develop  into  serious  pests  because  of  their  new  and 
unusually  favorable  surroundings. 

(3).  The  Japanese  species  of  chestnut  has  apparently  shoAvn 
considerable  immnnitj  to  the  chestnut  disease,  more  so  than  any 
other.  It  may  therefore  be  supposed  that  the  fungus  is  an  in- 
conspicuous native  of  Japan,  and  was  brought  into  this  country 
on  seedlings  from  there.  It  spread  to  our  native  chestnuts,  and 
finding  these  much  less  resistant  to  its  attacks,  has  suddenly 
spread  through  the  regions  in  which  it  is  now  knoAvn  to  occur. 

(4).  The  preceding  statements  being  true,  there  is  no  reason 
why  it  should  not  go  on  spreading,  and  annihilating  the  chest- 
nuts of  the  eastern  and  southern  United  States. 

(5).  Preliminary  cutting  out  experiments  in  a  region  with- 
in thirty-five  miles  of  Washington,  D.  C,  are  claimed  to  have 
prevented  the  spread  of  the  disease  in  that  region,  and  based  on. 
this,  the  much  more  extensive  work  in  Pennsylvania  is  now  being 
carried  on,  and  similar  work  is  advocated  in  other  States  to 
prevent  its  further  spread  tlirough  the  south  and  west. 

Now,  if  the  preceding  points  are  true,  Pennsylvania  has  pos- 
sibly taken  a  wise  step  in  trying  to  control  the  disease.  That  it 
can  ever  be  eradicated,  the  writer  does  not  believe  for  one  in- 
stant, and  he  has  serious  doubts  about  the  control  being  effective 
or  financially  profitable,  since  it  means  a  continuous  fight,  much 


78 

like  tlie  gypsy  inotli  work  in  Massaeliiisetts,  to  prevent  re-infec- 
tion. If  the  above  points,  however,  are  not  trne,  it  seems  to  me, 
at  least,  that  the  efforts  for  control  planned  for  this  iState  will  be 
time,  money  and.  trees  thrown  away. 

The  antlior  of  the  first  view  has  not,  to  my  knowledge,  claimed 
that  the  chestnnt  blight  was  imported  from  Europe,  or  that  the 
European  chestnuts  in  this  country  are  especially  immune  to 
the  disease.  If  he  should  ever  advocate  that  it  is  a  European  im- 
portation, I  do  not  see  how  he  can  account  for  the  fact  that  it 
has  caused  no  very  noticeable  trouble  on  that  continent,  and  yet, 
when  introduced  here,  kills  off  the  European  chestnuts  as  readily 
as  the  native  ones;  unless  he  admits  that  weather  or  other  con- 
ditions have  been  unfavorable  for  these  chestnuts,  and  have  thus 
favored  the  develox^ment  of  tlie  fungus. 

Proceeding  now^  to  my  own  theory,  let  me  take  it  up  jjoint  by 
point. 

First,  that  the  chestnut  blight  is  a  native  of  this  country.  In 
1909  I  sent  to  Professor  FarloAV,  of  Harvard  University,  the  first 
specimen  of  Dlaportlic  piirasiUca  that  he  had  examined,  and 
asked  his  opinion  as  to  whether  or  not  it  Avas  the  same  as  a  cer- 
tain species  that  Schweinitz  had  years  before  described  on  chest- 
nuts from  this  country.  He  replied  that  it  was  not,  but  that  it 
agreed  more  perfectly  Avith  the  genus  Endothia  than  Avitli  Dia- 
porthe,  and  that  it  was  closely  related  to,  but  apparently  dis- 
tinct from,  Endothia  gyrosa.  Endothia  rjyrosa  Avas  originally 
described  from  Carolina  and  Pennsylvania  by  SchAveinitz  as 
kiphaeriu  radlcaUs  and  ^phaeria  gyrosa,  and  reported  by  him  on 
Fagus  and  Juglans.  It  has  since  been  reported  in  the  United 
States  on  Liquidambar  and  Quercus  species,  chiefly  on  the  lat- 
ter. 

AVith  the  clue  furnished  by  Professor  FarloAV,  I  found  and  so 
stilted  in  my  1908  report,  that  a  specimen  of  Endothia  gyrosa 
on  chestnut  collected  by  Scarrado  in  Italy  had  been  issued  in  de 
Thuemen's  Myc.  Univ.  No.  769,  and  that  so  far  as  its  gross  ap- 
pearance and  pycnidial  stage  (the  only  stage  present  in  my  speci- 
men) Avere  concerned,  I  could  not  distinguish  it  from  DiaportJie 
parasitica  Murr.  As  the  ascospore  stage  was  not  present,  I  did 
not  venture  to  claim  that  they  were  the  same  species. 


79 

The  Avriter  Las  since  made  a  careful  limit  for  Endothla  (jyrosa 
and  has  specimens  of  it  on  two  species  of  oak  collected  in  Con- 
necticut and  the  District  of  Columbia.  Cultures  have  been  made 
of  these,  and  from  DiaportJte  parasitica  on  chestnut  obtained 
from  the  same  localities.  Our  studies  of  these  cultures  and 
specimens  from  various  localities  are  not  yet  complete,  but  they 
have  gone  far  enough  to  say  definitely  that  DiaportJie  parasitwa 
belongs  in  the  same  genus  with  the  Endothia  gyrosa  on  oak,  and 
at  least  is  very  closely  related  to  it,  though  at  present  my  opinion 
is  that  they  are  distinct  species.  ]*rofessor  Farlow  has  also 
made  further  studies,  and  I  have  presented  his  paper  on  the 
subject. 

We  have  not  been  able  so  far  to  find  in  literature  a  reference  to 
Endothia  gyrosa  on  chestnut  in  this  country  before  the  outbreak 
of  Diaporthe  parasitica  in  1904.  Neither  have  we  found  speci- 
mens in  an  herbarium  that  were  collected  before  that  date.  We 
have  not,  however,  quite  exhausted  all  opxDortunities  for  investi- 
gation along  this  line.  If  it  is  ever  proved  that  our  Endothia 
gyrosa  on  the  oak  is  exactly  the  same  as  Diaporf^ie  parasitica  on 
the  chestnut,  of  course  it  is  at  once  apparent  that  Diaporthe  para- 
sitica is  a  native  and  not  an  imx^orted  fungus. 

A  second  observation  that  leads  me  to  believe  that  l)iaporlJic 
parasititca  is  a  native  species  is  the  fact  that  frequently  in  Con- 
necticut I  have  found  it  as  a  languishing  parasite  on  the  roots 
and  base  of  trees,  where  it  was  doing  no  very  apparent  harm, 
and  this  is  somewhat  the  way  Endothia  gyrosa  occurs  on  oak 
here  and  elsewhere,  and  is  also  the  way  that  tlie  so-called  En- 
dothia gyrosa  on  chestnut  acts  in  Europe,  where  it  causes  no 
particular  trouble.  This  makes  me  believe  that  these 
particular  occurrences  of  Diaporthe  parasitica  in  Connecticut 
represent  the  fungus  in  its  native  condition  as  an  inconspicuous 
parasite,  rather  than  as  an  introduced  pest  that  is  bound  to  kill 
those  particular  trees.  Likewise,  I  believe  that  at  least  part  of 
the  so-called  spread  of  the  disease  in  this  country  is  merely  an 
unusual  development  of  the  fungus  which  has  existed  there  for 
years  in  an  inconspicuous  way. 

A  third  indication  that  the  chestnut  blight  is  a  native  species 
is  a  comparison  of  the  situation  of  Endothia  gyrosa  in  Europe 
and  in  this  country,    In  Europe  Endothia  gyrosa  has  been  re- 


80 

ported  on  chestnut,  oak  and  various  other  liosts  in  different 
plaees,  bnt  apparently  the  natural  home  of  the  fungus  is  South- 
ern Europe,  as  it  has  been  reported  most  frequently  from  Italy 
and  France.  In  Germany,  Winter  reported  that  it  produced  its 
pycnidial,  but^not  its  perfect  stage,  though  both  are  found  in 
Italy.  Now,  if  Endothia  gyrosa  has  a  variety  of  hosts,  including 
chestnut,  in  Europe,  and  prefers  a  southern  habitat,  what  of  its 
preferences  in  this  country?  From  an  examination  of  literature 
and  of  specimens  in  the  New  York  Botanical  Gardens,  it  is  ap- 
parent that  Endothia  gyrosa  has  been  reported  much  more  fre- 
quently south  of  Pennsylvania  than  north  of  it.  For  two  years, 
I  and  others  have  been  looking  for  it  in  Connecticut,  and  only 
this  winter  was  it  found  by  our  forester.  This  specimen,  like 
those  reported  by  Winter  from  Germany,  has  only  its  pycnidial 
stage,  though  this  is  the  time  of  j^ear  to  find  the  asco-stage.  En- 
dothia  gyrosa  has  been  found  on  as  manj^  hosts  in  this  country 
as  in  Europe,  and  likewise  chiefly  from  the  south.  Why  may  we 
not  then  expect  to  find  it  there  on  the  chestnut?  We  certainly 
have  had  trouble  enough  with  the  chestnuts  in  the  South  in  for- 
mer years  to  believe  that  it  might  occur  there.* 

The  second  point  expressed  in  my  view  is  that  the  chestnut 
blight  fungus  is  also  a  native  of  Europe.  Briefly  stated,  my  rea- 
sons for  this  belief  are:  (1)  The  specimens  in  deThiieman's 
exsiccati  on  chestnut  in  Italy  already  referred  to;  (2)  the  state- 
ment of  Professor  Farlow  that  he  has  seen  identical  herbarium 
specimens  of  it  from  Europe;  and  (3)  a  recent  letter  from  Pro- 
fessor Saccardo  of  Italy,  who  states  that  he  and  Professor  Hoh- 
nel  simultaneouslj^  recognized  that  DiaportJie  imrasitica  Murr. 
is  the  same  thing  as  Endothia  gyrosa,  both  in  its  ascospore  and 
conidial  stages.  A  critical  study  of  more  specimens  on  all  hosts 
from  each  country  may,  however,  settle  differently  some  points 
at  present  not  clear  to  me. 

*After  the  rTnrrisbnvg  conference  llio  «'ril!M'  went  South  espechilly  to  see  if  Enrlntliia  Oiirosa  or 
Diaporthie  parasilira  occnrred  there  on  cheslmit,  as  suggeisted  in  tliis  paper,  though  never  having 
been  so  reported.  Stops  were  naade  at  Eonnnl;c  and  Blaclfsbnrg,  Va. ,  Bristol.  Va.,  and  in  Ten- 
nessee and  at  Asheville  and  Tryon,  North  Carolina,  and  Lynchbnrg,  Va. ,  and  at  each  place  there 
was  found  the  suspected  fungus  on  both  chestnut  and  oak,  and  more  frequently  on  the  former.  This 
fungus  occurred  as  a  languishing  parasite  or  as  a  saprophyte,  usually  at  the  base  or  on  the  roots  of 
the  trees,  and  was  never  found  forming  isolated  cankers  on  the  otherwise  sound  sprouts,  as  is 
Diapnrtlie  'pnraaitica  in  the  North.  Apparently  this  fungus  is  the  same  on  both  the  oak  and 
chestnut,  and  the  same  thing  as  the  so-called  Entlotliia  f/i/rosa  on  the  same  hosts  in  Europe.  What 
its  exact  relationship  is  to  Diaportha  parasilica  has  not  yet  been  fully  determined.  In  gross  ap- 
pearance its  fruiting  pustules  are  scarcely  different,  except  possibly  slightly  less  luxuriant, 
as  a  rule.  Its  pycnidial  spores  or  Cytospora  stage  is  apparently  identical  with  that  of  D.  para- 
siiica,  hut  the  asco-spores  are  evidejitly  as  a  whole  less  luxuriant:  that  is,  they  are  somewhat 
smaller,  and  especially  slightly  narrower.  Whether  these  differences  are  those  of  a  strain,  variety, 
or  distinct  species,   is  yet  to  be  determined  by  cultures,   inoculations,   ^.pd  furthep  study. 


81 

Tlie  third  iDoiut  in  my  tlieor}^  is  tliat  weatlier  and  other  un- 
favorable conditions  have  weakened  the  vitality  of  the  chestnut 
in  the  eastern  United  States,  and  that  the  fungus  has  developed 
into  prominence  because  of  this.  The  reasons  I  have  for  advocat- 
ing this  theory  are  as  follows : 

(1).  The  chestnut  blight  came  into  prominence  suddenly  in 
1904,  just  after  the  severe  winter  of  1903-4.  From  my  own  ob- 
servation at  that  time  and  since,  I  know  that  this  winter  was  un- 
usually severe  on  fruit,  and  to  a  less  extent  on  shade  and  forest 
trees  in  Connecticut.  I  am  corroborated  in  my  views  by  the  ob- 
servations of  Professor  Stone,  botanist  of  the  Massachusetts  Ex- 
perimeut  Station,  who  has  made  a  specialty  of  the  diseases  and 
injuries  of  shade  and  forest  trees.  Various  experiment  stations 
and  other  publications  show  that  the  fruit  trees  in  New  York, 
Michigan  and  Ohio  suffered  from  this,  and  possibly  from  subse- 
quent cold  winters. 

(2).  Since  1907,  speaking  i)articularly  for  Connecticut,  we 
have  had  five  summers  with  unusual  periods  of  drought,  culmi- 
nating with  that  of  last  season,  wliich  lasted  from  June  until 
about  the  first  of  August.  I  know  that  these  droughts  have  been 
hard  on  forest  and  shade  trees  from  their  weakened  condition 
and  from  the  unusual  number  that  have  died.  Except  in  the 
case  of  chestnuts,  the  death  of  these  trees  has  been  laid  directly 
to  the  drought,  by  many  observers.  I  have  given  somewhat  more 
detailed  accounts  of  these  weather  conditions  in  my  previous  re- 
ports, and  will  not  dwell  further  on  tliem  here.  We  have  found 
that  chestnut  trees  on  the  south  and  southwest  exposures,  (and 
on  that  side  of  the  trees)  where  they  have  suffered  most  from 
drought  and  winter  injury,  have  sometimes  developed  severe  out- 
breaks-of  the  blight,  while  the  trees  on  the  more  protected  north- 
ern exposures  in  the  same  vicinity  did  not. 

(3).  We  have  found  cases  of  chestnut  blight  developing  more 
severely  in  woods  suffering  from  fire  injury  than  in  surrounding 
woods  not  so  injured.  It  has  been  our  almost  universal  experi- 
ence that  blight  develops  first  and  most  severely  in  the  easily  in- 
jured chestnut  sprouts  from  one  to  ten  years  old,  whose  new 
roots  have  not  yet  become  thoroughly  established,  and  last  on  the 

6 


82 

sturdy  old  scedliug  trees.  How  many  times  we  can  renew  our 
cliestiiut  woods  by  sprout  growth  is  a  question,  but  that  such 
trees  in  time  are  weakened  foresters  generally  acknowledge.  Most 
of  our  Connecticut  chestnut  timber  has  alreadj^  been  cut  over  at 
least  two  or  three  times. 

(4).  The  unusual  spread  of  the  disease  iu  very  dry  years  is 
contrary  to  the  general  experience  of  fungous  troubles,  which 
are  favored  by  moist  years;  and  yet  here  is  a  case  where  the 
severer  the  drought,  the  worse  the  fungus  became.  If  I  am 
wrong  about  its  relation  to  weather  conditions,  what  a 
deluge  of  trouble  we  may  expect  with  the  return  of  a  few  moist 
years ! 

As  to  my  statement  that  chestnut  blight  cannot  be  eradicated 
in  this  country  by  the  cutting  out  and  burning  method  perhaps 
no  one  now  thoroughly  conversant  with  the  trouble  will  deny, 
though  there  are  those  that  evidently  believe  it  can  be  controlled 
in  this  way.  Man  never  yet  has  eradicated  a  fungus  so  widely 
distributed  as  this,  unaided  by  nature,  and  is  never  likely  to  un- 
less he  eliminates  the  host.  Professors  Stewart  and  Murrill  have 
given  reasons  why  they  believe  it  is  impractical  even  to  try  to 
control  the  disease.  I  agree  in  the  main  with  their  contentions. 
The  method  that  is  advocated  in  the  present  case  aims  at  the  com- 
plete destruction  of  the  infected  trees  and  in  some  regions,  if  I 
am  informed  correctly,  of  the  healthy  as  well.  This  is  a  decidedly 
unusual  procedure  in  the  control  of  plant  diseases,  since  usually 
we  aim  to  save  not  only  the  healtliy  plants  but  the  infected  ones 
as  well.  I  know  of  no  similar  practice,  outside  of  nursery  in- 
spections, except  that  applied  in  a  few  regions  for  the  control 
of  peach  yellows.  There  the  infected  trees  only  are  destroyed, 
but  the  yellows  would  kill  those  any  way  in  a  short  time.  There 
is,  however,  no  National  effort  to  control  peach  yellows  even  in 
this  way  and  at  least  one  State,  Connecticut,  that  started  under 
authority  of  law  to  inspect  orchards  and  to  destroy  all  infected 
trees,  repealed  that  law  after  a  few  ^^^nrs'  trial. 

Now  as  to  my  last  contention :  that  the  disease  of  itself  will 
gradually  decline  with  the  return  of  a  series  of  years  favorable 
to  the  chestnut  trees.  If  unfavorable  weather  conditions  for  the 
trees  have  been  the  chief  cause  of  the  rise  of  the  fungus  as  an 
aggressive  parasite,  favorable  weather  conditions  for  the  chest- 


83 

luit  Avill  of  course  bring  about  the  decline  of  the  fungus,  unless  it 
has  already  attained  an  unusual  and  lasting  virulence  fronof  its 
present  aggressiveness. 

Tliat  chestnuts  have  in  the  past  in  our  southern  States  suffered 
from  disease  or  injury  of  some  kind  yet  unaccounted  for,  no  one 
who  has  looked  up  the  literature  of  the  subject  can  deny.  I  have 
gathered  together  statements  of  this  sort  from  various  sources, 
but  will  not  take  the  time  to  present  them  here.  From  the  fact 
that  no  trained  mycologist  has  studied  these  outbreaks  in  the 
past,  and  from  the  further  fact  that  the  observers  often  speak 
of  them  by  such  terms  as  "blight,"  "root  rot"  and  so  forth,  and 
did  not  find  insects  responsible,  I,  for  one,  am  open  to  proof  as 
to  their  relation  to  Diaporthe  pasasitica,  despite  the  statement  of 
two  or  three  observers  who  have  recently  examined  trees  in  the 
South,  that  there  is  no  such  relationship.  Anyway,  the  chest- 
nuts have  suffered  severely  in  these  States  at  different  times  dur- 
ing the  past  seventy-five  years,  and  have  been  apparently 
crowded  out  of  the  lower  lands,  but  they  still  seem  to  be  quite 
vigorous  and  abundant  in  the  higher  regions  of  those  States, 
since  the  chief  object  of  the  campaign  in  fighting  Diaporthe  para- 
sitica seems  to  be  to  keep  it  north  of  the  Potomac  River  in  order 
to  preserve  the  valuable  timber  said  to  exist  south  of  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN :  We  are  now  to  be  favored  by  hearing  an 
illustrated  lecture  on  Chestnut  Culture,  the  speaker  being  Pro- 
fessor Nelson  F.  Davis,  of  Bucknell  University,  Lewisburg,  Pa. 


CHESTNUT  CULTURE. 


AN    ILLUSTRATED    LECTURE    BY    PROFESSOR    NELSON   F.    DAVIS,    OF 
BUCKNELL   UNIVERSITY,   LEWISBURG,    PA. 


Mr.  Chairman,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen:  I  wish  to  take  you 
to-night  on  a  little  trip  to  Irish  Valley,  situated  near  Shamokin, 
Pa.  I  will  take  you  on  this  trip  by  a  series  of  lantern  slides. 
I  wish  to  show  you  to-night  what  has  been  done  in  spite  of  ene- 


84 

mies,  by  Mr.  C.  K.  Sober,  who  Las  l)een  working  with  the  Para- 
gon chestnut  since  1896  and  1897.  In  1896  Mr.  Sober  began  to 
graft  the  Sober  Paragon  chestnut,  as  it  is  now  called,  on  native 
chestnut  sprouts.  He  had  on  his  farm  in  Irish  Valley  about  four 
hundred  acres  of  waste  mountain  land.  This  mountain  land  he 
wished  to  reclaim.  It  was  not  suitable  for  ordinary  farm  crops. 
His  method  was  to  remove  everything  and,  by  means  of  cleanli- 
ness, which  he  obtained  by  using  the  grubbing  hoe,  the  saw,  the 
axe,  and  the  pruning  knife,  and  then  burning  everything,  to  keep 
his  growth  clean.  In  this  way  he  hoped  to  keep  out  the  enemies, 
such  as  the  weevil,  and  another  worse  than  the  weevil,  the  burr 
worm.  There  are  two  species  of  the  burr  worm,  one  of  which  is 
new  to  scientists.  It  belong  to  the  genus  Holcocera,  and  has  been 
named,  in  honor  of  Mr.  Sober,  Eolcocera  Soherii.  The  other 
larva,  the  adult  of  which  is  not  known,  is  equally  injurious.  By 
means  of  removing  the  nuts  as  soon  as  they  emerge,  removing 
the  burrs  from  the  grove  and  burning  the  shucks  as  soon  as  the 
nuts  are  taken  out,  Mr.  Sober  on  fifty  acres  has  practically  re- 
moved the  weevil  and  burr  worm,  so  that  last  year  the  nuts 
gathered  from  fifty  acres  contained  scarcely  a  peck  of  wormy 
chestnuts.  He  has  done  this  by  means  of  cleanliness  in  every  way, 
and  by  removing  the  larvae  and  not  allowing  them  to  mature.  In 
other  parts  of  the  grove  it  has  not  been  possible  to  do  this  in 
every  respect,  and  there  the  weevil  is  an  enemy.  It  has  been  his 
custom,  during  the  last  ten  years,  to  remove  every  dead  limb  that 
has  appeared  in  the  four  hundred  acres  and  if  there  was  chestnut 
blight,  it  has  been  cut  off  and  burned.  An  actual  count  of  tlie 
chestnut  trees  noAV  in  the  grove  showed  forty-four  thousand  and 
thirty-five  trees  that  are  bearing,  and  in  addition  to  those  there 
are  others  that  are  not  yet  matured. 

By  means  of  these  slides  I  will  take  you  in  harvest  time  over 
the  grove  as  it  now  is,  and  then,  by  means  of  other  slides  which 
I  have  taken  during  the  last  ten  years,  show  you  the  various  steps 
that  have  been  taken  in  developing  this  grove.  If  we  may  have 
the  lantern,  we  will  begin  our  trip. 

The  first  slide  is  a  portrait  of  Mr.  C.  K.  Sober.     (Applause). 

The  next  slide  represents  a  portion  of  a  fifty-acre  tract,  as  it 
appeared  when  he  took  possession  of  it.  It  was  covered  with 
waste  wood  of  various  sorts.    Very  little  of  this  was  of  any  use. 


A  typical  cluster  of  burrs  of  the  Paragon  thestuut. 


85 

Some  could  be  used,  of  course,  for  pulp  wood ;  but  notice,  among 
the  old  stumi^s,  there  are  a  few  sprouts  coming  up.  These  are 
sj)routs  of  the  native  chestnut,  and  it  Avas  upon  tiiese  si^routs 
that  Mr.  Sober  conceived  the  idea  of  grafting.  Of  course,  it  had 
been  done  elsewhere,  but  not  upon  his  four  hundred  acres.  That 
was  the  beginning  of  his  Paragon  chestnut. 

As  we  approach  the  grove  at  the  present  time,  you  will  see  the 
mountain  side  in  Irish  Valley  from  this  view.  This  shows  on 
the  hillside  from  a  distance  a  portion  of  the  four  hundred  acres, 
which  is  now  grafted,  and  from  one  end  of  the  picture  to  the 
other  rei)resents  a  distance  of  over  a  mile. 

In  the  next  view,  as  we  approach  the  farm,  coming  near  to  the 
buildings,  jou  can  see  the  nature  of  the  surrounding  country, 
the  hillside.  Back  in  the  centre  of  the  i)icture,  at  the  top,  is 
ninety  acres  now  grafted  to  the  Paragon  chestnut. 

In  the  next  view  we  see  the  farm  buildings  and,  starting  from 
the  buildings,  we  will  now  visit  tlie  grove  as  it  appeared  last 
October. 

Driving  up  the  road  you  notice  along  the  roadside  everywhere 
seedlings  grafted  to  the  Paragon.  They  have  been  transplanted, 
and  all  along  the  road  wherever  you  drive,  you  will  see  these 
trees. 

As  we  approach  the  grove,  you  can  see  its  condition  in  this 
view.  Tliis  is  a  i)ortion  of  the  four  hundred  acres.  There  are 
shown  in  the  view  about  three  hundred  acres.  Above  you  see  the 
the  mountain  side,  as  this  grove  would  now  have  been  had  he  not 
cleared  it. 

A  nearer  approach  to  the  grove  shows  the  grafted  trees,  and 
above  them  the  native  chestnut  principally.  This  land  was  ori- 
ginally covered  with,  I  suppose,  white  pine.  That  was  removed 
and  later  iiard  woods  came  in  its  place,  oak,  chestnut,  and  other 
hard  woods.  Now  it  meant  considerable  work  removing  and 
clearing  and  grafting' these  trees,  and  I  wish  to  sliow  yon  tlie 
various  stages  as  we  pass  along. 

As  we  enter  tlie  grove,  it  is  liarvest  time,  as  shoAvn  in  tin's  view. 
They  are  gathering  tlie  nuts,  which  have  been  placed  in  bags  at 
this  particular  portion,  so  thnt  we  are  just  entering  the  grove. 


86 

In  tlie  next  view,  the  largest  tree  at  the  right  is  about  nine 
years  old.  Eeallj  the  work  from  189G  until  1900  consisted  in 
experimenting.  AMien  the  methods  were  perfected,  the  real  work 
began,  in  1900. 

Another  portion  of  the  grove  shows  a  tree  on  which  the  nuts 
are  maturing.     This  tree  is  about  eight  years  old. 

A  branch  from  that  tree  shoAVS  the  nuts  almost  ripe,  just  ready 
to  open.  If  we  examine  under  the  trees,  many  of  the  burrs  are 
fallen  to  the  ground.  You  can  see  the  burrs  and  the  nuts  in  the 
burrs.  It  is  harvest  time  and  the  harvesters  are  gathering  the 
nuts  and  placing  them  in  piles,  whence  they  can  be  hauled  to 
the  threshing  machine,  which  will  be  shown  later. 

The  next  view  shows  a  normal  burr,  containing  three  nuts. 

I  will  now  show  the  different  stages  through  which  fifty  acres 
of  this  four  hundred  have  passed.  I  do  not  have  the  photographs 
taken  in  1896  and  97.  The  photographs  I  have  were  taken  be- 
ginning with  1903  up  to  the  present  time.  This  view  shows  the 
work  of  removing  the  brush  piles,  which  were  left  on  the  ground. 
These  had  to  be  burned,  the  logs  removed  and  all  the  sprouts  pro- 
tected. Every  native  sprout  was  protected  in  every  way  from 
fire  and  from  injury,  and  in  the  front  of  this  view  you  see  a  num- 
ber of  sprouts  that  have  been  left.  These  are  ready  to  be  grafted. 
When  the  logs  are  hauled  out,  these  have  to  be  protected;  when 
fires  are  made,  to  burn  the  brush  and  rubbish,  these  need  to  be 
protected.  A  sawmill  was  set  up,  and  what  wood  was  valuable 
used  either  for  railroad  ties,  or  mine  props,  or  pulpwood,  for 
whatever  it  could  be  used,  so  that  it  partly  paid  for  clearing. 

When  the  sprouts  are  ready  to  graft,  they  are  about  six  feet 
high.  Four  sprouts  are  here  shown.  The  two  on  this  side  were 
cut  off  about  the  point  where  the  hand  is,  and  these  two  were 
selected  because,  coming  from  the  stump,  they  came  from  lower 
down  and  a  little  farther  out  and  apparently  had  better  roots. 
So  two  were  selected  and  two  were  left.  The  two  were  grafted 
on  this  side  and  two  left,  in  case  of  injury  to  the  other  two;  so 
that,  if  anything  happened,  the  others  could  be  grafted  the  next 
season. 

Old  trees  were  cut  down  in  different  parts  of  the  farm.  This 
shows  a  giant  tree  that  was  cut  in  order  that  this  little  sprout  at 


87 

the  side  might  be  grafted.     This  was  about  two  years  after  the 
tree  was  cut. 

This  shows  auother  tree  from  AAiiich  four  sprouts  were  grafted. 
This  was  grafted  iu  May,  and  in  June  the  sprouts  were  started. 
Of  course,  all  buds  below  the  graft  were  removed  in  order  to  pre- 
vent the  strength  passing  nii-o  iiie  buds. 

This  view  shows  the  same  grafts  as  they  were  maturing  dur- 
ing the  first  summer.  Three  have  started ;  the  fourth  was  a  little 
slow  in  starting. 

Here  they  are  shown  after  one  season's  growth.  The  roots 
from  the  old  stump  contained  lots  of  nourishment  and  pushed  the 
growth  rapidly,  so  that  during  one  season  the  growth  that  you 
see  took  place.    This  was  taken  in  October. 

Another  view  showing  one  season's  growth,  after  the  leaves 
had  been  removed.  This  shows  four  sprouts  grafted.  They  are 
growing  together. 

This  is  a  typical  sprout  after  the  first  j^ear's  growth.  Notice- 
it  makes  a  fan-shaj)ed  tree.  At  this  point,  sometime  during  the 
early  spring  this  limb  would  be  cut  off  here  (indicating),  this 
one  and  the  one  at  that  point,  thereby  insuring  the  next  3'^ear  a 
low  crown.  The  growth  is  so  rapid  that  frequently  the  wind 
would  break  them  off  if  they  were  not  cut  back,  so  that  it  is  much 
better  to  cut  them  back. 

The  next  view  shows  a  grafting  outfit.  These  are  the  sprouts 
cut  from  the  Paragon  trees,  called  the  "scions,"  to  be  grafted  on 
the  native  sprouts.  This  shows  the  tape,  which  is  waxed,  and 
some  of  the  grafting  wax.  This  is  the  machine  for  winding  the 
waxed  tape,  previous  to  the  beginning  of  the  grafting. 

The  wedge  graft  was  used  first.  This  view  shows  the  method 
of  insertion  of  the  wedge  graft.  It  is  then  waxed  and  wound 
Avith  the  waxed  tape.  The  wedge  graft  was  used  by  professional 
grafters  who  were  employed  in  1897,  1898  and  1899,  but  only 
about  two  per  cent,  survived.  The  season  is  very  short  during 
which  this  could  be  used,  because  the  bark  separates  from  tlie 
stock  so  early  tliat  the  union  wouhl  not  take  place. 

This  view  shows  one  of  the  trees,  showing  a  successful  union 
of  the  wedge  graft.  This  is  one  of  the  oldest  trees  now  to  be 
seen  in  tlie  grove. 


88 

This  view  shows  a  Avedge  graft,  one  of  the  original  ones,  that 
did  grow.  This  i^hotograph,  I  think,  was  tal^eu  in  1903,  but 
only  about  two  per  cent,  of  the  grafts  in  1897,  98,  and  99  lived, 
so  that  there  are  onl}^  a  few  of  these  surviving.  The  wedge  graft 
method  was  consequently  abandoned. 

Then  budding  was  tried.  This  method  you  are  familiar  with. 
This  is  the  bud  to  be  inserted.  It  is  then  inserted,  Avrapped  with 
wax  and  covered  with  the  cloth.  This  method,  however,  Avas  not 
successful  when  used  in  the  grove.  A  few  of  them  lived.  The 
next  view  shows  such  a  case ;  two  on  either  side  are  buds  that  did 
live,  and  in  the  centre  is  a  whip  graft.  Here  is  one  that  was  suc- 
cessful.    After  a  time  the  tree  heals  up  perfectly  at  the  union. 

This  view  shows  the  manner  of  inserting  the  knife  in  the  whip 
graft.  It  should  be  inserted  at  a  considerable  dex)tli.  This  one 
is  shown  with  the  top  cut  off  ready  for  grafting.  This  is  the 
sprout,  on  which  the  graft  is  to  be  set. 

This  shows  another  view  of  the  whip  graft,  the  method  that 
has  been  successful.  This  came  in  1900,  when  Mr.  Sober  person- 
ally took  charge  of  the  grafting.  He  instructed  green  men 
rather  than  professional  grafters  and  had  them  use  his  method, 
being  particular  to  make  the  scion  fit  perfectly  to  the  stock. 
It  is  then  inserted  and  driven  down  so  that  the  tongue  holds  it 
at  that  point;  it  is  cut  back  a  little  later,  waxed  there  (indicat- 
ing) and  tbe  bud  is  allowed  to  develop. 

This  view  shows  the  completion  of  it.  The  stock  may  be  even 
a  little  larger  than  the  scion.  It  is  better  to  have  them  the  same 
diameter.  It  is  then  waxed  an'd  wrapped  with  tape  and  a  little 
piece  of  wax  put  on  the  top  of  the  scion  to  keep  the  moisture  in. 
This  is  the  most  successful  method  with  chestnuts. 

This  shows  one  after  the  graft  has  started.  This  is  waxed 
muslin,  which  is  old  muslin  that  will  tear,  readily  as  tlie  tree 
grows,  and  will  remove  itself,  so  that  it  does  not  girdle  the  tree. 

This  is  after  one  year's  growth,  the  union  practically  complete 
all  the  way  around. 

The  next  view  sliows  a  througli  section,  sliowing  the  complete 
union.  Here  is  the  tongue  which  held  tliem  together;  and  here 
is  another  section  through.  Occasionally  they  decay  at  that 
point.     This  shows  a  perfect  union  of  the  whip  graft. 


It  is  very  necessary  to  keep  the  buds  removed  from  below  the 
graft.  The  four  grafts  shown  in  this  view  started,  all  of  them, 
but  the  buds  below  took  all  the  strength  from  them.  The  bark 
has  been  removed  from  the  three  on  this  side;  from  the  other  it 
has  not.  The  sap,  of  course,  flows  along  the  line  of  least  re- 
sistance and  takes  all  the  strength  and  the  graft  dies. 

The  next  is  a  photograph  to  show  the  Paragon  grafted  on  oak. 
The  tree  is  still  living.  The  oak  now  is  smaller  in  diameter  than 
the  chestnut,  the  chestnut  growing  faster.  This  was  not  very 
successful;  still,  it  is  succecssful  to  the  extent  that  it  lives  and 
bears  nuts. 

A  defective  union.  At  that  point  (indicating)  enemies  <!an 
enter, — fungi  and  beetles.  The  wind  also  will  frequently  break 
off  a  tree  at  the  j)oint  of  union,  if  the  union  is  not  perfect.  A 
sprout  was  allowed  to  mature  on  this  and  later  was  grafted. 
The  growth  is  very  rapid,  and  the  chestnut  not  being  a  strong 
wood,  many  were  lost  in  this  way  where  the  union  was  defective. 

This  is  a  portion  of  the  fifty  acres  as  it  appeared  six  years  ago. 

Here  we  have  a  view  of  it  a  little  later.  All  the  roots  of  the 
other  trees  begin  to  sprout  and  it  is  necessary  to  clean  out  every- 
tliing.  If  the  underbrush  is  allowed  to  grow,  it  will,  sooner  or 
later,  choke  out  the  trees  and  will  allow  enemies  to  develop*;  you 
cannot  keep  it  too  clean.  Fires  will  run  -through  it;  so  Mr. 
Sober  earl}^  found  that  it  was  necessary  to  keejD  the  growth 
clean.  Many  parts  of  it  are  now  clean  enough  to  mow  with  a 
lawn  mower.  In  many  places  the  grass  is  beginning  to  grow. 
I  wish  you  would  notice  how  clean  the  grove  is  in  places.  This 
is  the  condition  soon  after  the  grafting.  Then  it  was  necessary 
to  employ  from  twenty-five  to  fifty  men  to  clean  out  and,  in 
order  to  save  the  young  grafted  trees,  screens  were  made.  At 
one  time  I  saw  as  many  as  twenty-five  of  these  screens.  Tliey 
were  covered  with  asbestos  to  protect  them  from  the  fire,  and 
the  young  sprouts  that  have  been  grafted  are  back  of  the  screens. 
These  men  are  grubbing  out  and  cleaning,  trying  to  get  tlie 
ground  clean  enough  to  raise  grass. 

Tliis  view  shows  one  of  th(^  screens  a  liltle  nearer  and  some 
of  the  men,  who  rested  a  moment  wliih^  I  took  the  pliotograj)!). 


90 

Here  they  are  again.  Even  after  the  trees  are  of  this  size,  it 
is  necessary  to  finish  the  cleaning.  They  are  cleaning  ont  evevy- 
thing;  any  suspicions  sign,  any  dead  tree,  is  cut  out. 

Another  view  showing  them  carrying  the  material  to  the 
screens  for  burning, — grubbing  out  sprouts,  so  that  later  it  was 
possible  to  run  a  specially  constructed  mowing  machine  through 
it,  and  much  of  the  undergrowth  could  be  cut  off  in  that  way. 
It  is  possible  to  run  a  mowing  machine  through  nearly  all  of  the 
four  hundred  acres,  except  where  there  are  too  many  stones. 

Originally  the  idea  occurred  to  Mr.  Sober  to  graft  the  tops  of 
a  few  of  the  trees,  and  we  had  full  sized  trees  in  which  eight  or 
ten  grafts  were  set  on  the  top.  This  view  shows  one  where  the 
top  was  grafted ;  this  one  is  another,  mth  the  top  grafted.  That, 
however,  did  not  prove  successful,  because  you  would  have  only 
a  few  limbs  in  the  top,  and  in  a  little  while  the  others  would 
catch  up  with  them. 

Here  is  another  view  of  a  tree  grafted  at  the  top,  and  this  a 
younger  tree,  two  years  old,  beginning  to  bear  nearly  as  many 
nuts  as  the  grafts  at  the  toj)  of  the  other  tree.  You  can  see, 
therefore,  why  that  method  was  abandoned.  The  Paragon  be- 
gins to  bear  very  early,  the  second  year  after  grafting;  occa- 
sionally the  first  year  a  burr  or  two  will  mature. 

Now  the  grove  is  beginning  to  look  cleaner.  These  trees  are 
two  or  three  years  old.  This  was  taken  in  the  summer  time,  in 
June,  before  the  trees  had  blossomed.  This  is  a  young  tree  two 
years  from  the  time  the  graft  was  set,  really  the  third  summer 
for  it;  a  typical  tree.  It  is  now  making  independent  roots  for 
itself  and  in  a  little  while  it  will  be  free  from  the  old  stump. 
Many  of  the  old  stumps  are  still  standing.  Some  of  them  have 
rotted  away. 

Another  portion  of  the  grove,  just  a  little  later,  showing  trees 
one,  two,  and  three  years  old,  and  the  tops  of  a  few  trees  that 
were  grafted  in  the  top. 

This  view  shows  two  trees  by  the  roadside,  one  two  jeavs  old; 
tlie  other  in  the  third  season  of  its  growth.  Notice  the  shape. 
They  were  cut  low,  so  as  to  secure  this  low  crown,  which  makes 
it  convenient  in  harvesting  the  nuts.  It  keeps  the  trees  low. 
It  is  like  it  is  with  a  peacli  tree;  the  shape  is  much  tlie  same  as 
that  of  a  peach  tree. 


1 

1     /^ 

^^^^^^^^^b^EB^^ 

j^^pfc;^  ^HhHHII^«B^^K 

^MM^qM^MHMBB 

s 

^^^^Q^9| 

I 

h^^HhHh| 

■H 

H^piE^S^BEB^^W|^^^ 

y' 

™'^^^^^M 

' 

i 

.?ji^^H||^mBBBB^B 

^ 

^^  .,^.  «iiiflHH^B 

Group  of  Paragon  chestnut  trees,   two,  four     and  six  years  old. 


91 

This  is  a  view  of  an  ideal  tree,  three  years  old,  with  a  low 
crown,  tAVO  feet  from  the  ground. 

In  this  view,  the  hnckleberries  are  beginning  to  grow  under- 
neath; all  through  the  grove  the  huckleberries  have  filled  prac- 
tically everything.  The  ground  has  been  burned  over,  to  burn 
up  the  leaves  and  the  burrs,  which  contain  the  enemies,  and  the 
huckleberries  and  chestnut  sprouts  are  coming  up ;  but  it  is  nec- 
essary to  keep  these  down. 

This  view  shows  how  that  same  ground  was  cleared,  and 
how  it  appeared  in  the  winter  time.  Everything  that  could 
be  removed  was  grubbed  olf  and  burned,  the  screens  which  you 
saw  before  being  used. 

This  is  a  young  tree,  three  years  old,  in  the  third  summer. 
From  that  tree  three  hundred  burrs  were  removed.  Two  hun- 
dred were  left  to  mature.  This  was  too  many,  and  many  of 
them  dropped  off.  The  leaves  were  picked  from  that  same  tree, 
and  this  view  shows  it  with  over  a  hundred  burrs  in  which  the 
nuts  are  practically  ripe. 

This  is  the  grove  as  it  appeared  in  1904.  This  is  a  portion 
not  of  the  fifty  acres,  but  a  portion  in  the  flat  which  was  grafted 
about  1900,  some  of  it  in  1899.  Notice  now  that  the  grass  is  be- 
ginning to  grow  below  the  trees.  The  stumps  are  there,  but  the 
tree  is  becoming  independent.  It  is  now  possible  to  have  the 
mowing  done  by  means  of  cattle  and  sheep  in  the  grove. 

This  is  another  view  showing  trees  out  by  the  edges,  as  the 
sprouts  come  up.  They  were  grafted  until  there  is  a  stand  all 
over  the  four  hundred  acres,  and  now  it  is  necessary  to  use  the 
axe  to  trim  out,  because  they  are  too  thick. 

Another  portion,  showing  a  four-year  old  tree,  with  nuts. 

This  view  shows  the  trees  a  little  older.  This  was  taken  in 
1910  and  shows  the  character  of  the  mountain  side.  It  is  cov- 
ered with  stones;  impossible  to  mow  around  it;  it  has  to  be 
grubbed, — but  an  ideal  place.  The  stones  help  to  keep  the  mois- 
ture in  the  ground  and  the  trees  do  exceptionally  well. 

This  is  another  tree,  a  photograph  taken  in  1911.  It  was  in 
October  and  the  nuts  were  ripening  on  the  tree. 

The  next  view  shows  part  of  an  old  hedgerow  that  had  groAvn 
up  with  everything.  Stones  from  the  field  on  either  side  of 
this  had  been  thrown  along  a  gully  that  existed  there  at  one 


92 

time.  Ill  that  row,  in  which  there  are  altogether  about  twenty- 
nine  trees,  three  years  ago  there  matured  nine  and  a  half  bush- 
els of  nuts,  just  on  that  old  hedgerow,  that  could  not  be  used  for 
anything  else,  and  full  of  stones.  Some  of  the  trees  in  that  row 
last  fall  had  almost  half  a  bushel  of  nuts  on  single  trees.  The 
trees  on  the  four  hundred  acres  last  year  were  practically  all 
bearing ;  some  of  them  less  than  a  pint  to  the  tree ;  others  almost 
half  a  bushel  to  the  tree. 

This  view  was  taken  in  1903,  or  1904.  Notice  the  size  of  the 
trees,  especially.  About  five  hundred  sheep  were  put  into  the 
grove  and  they  are  doing  the  mowing  and  fattening  themsehes, 
where  the  machine  is  no  longer  needed. 

This  view  shows  the  same  trees  in  1911.  The  fence  by  the  side 
shows  the  growth  from  1904  to  1911.  They  are  rapid  growers, 
because  they  have  a  good  root  system. 

This  is  a  view  of  the  ridge,  a  i3ortion  of  the  ridge  that  has  a 
southern  front.  There  are  ninety  acres  grafted,  and  all  bearing. 
The  red  spider  appeared  on  this  southern  side,  the  sunny  slope, 
and  interfered  with  the  growth. 

Here  is  a  near  view  on  the  three  hundred  acre  lot.  It  shows 
the  condition  which  might  have  existed  up  to  the  top  of  the  ridge. 
That  is  Mr.  Sober's  line.  A  fence  is  built, — you  can  just  see 
the  posts, — and  that  fence  is  a  mile  long,  running  from  one  end 
to  the  other,  and  below  it  is  what  you  see  and  above  is  waste 
mountain  land,  containing  chestnut  and  rock  oak.  Through 
that,  of  course,  fires  run  every  now  and  then  and  it  is  necessary 
to  establish  fire  lanes  at  the  upper  end,  so  that  below  the  fence 
is  a  fire  lane  which  will  prevent  a  fire  from  getting  into  the 
grove. 

This  photograph  shows  what  was  there  in  1896  and  1897 — that 
same  grove  that  you  saw  up  at  the  edge.  This  has  been  possi- 
ble with  Mr.  Sober,  and  it  is  possible  anywhere  where  the  chest- 
nut grows.  You  can  make  the  change  from  this  to  what  you 
saw  before. 

This  is  the  identical  spot  that  you  were  looking  at  in  the  pic- 
ture preceding.  The  preccMling  picture  was  taken  five  years 
ago,  and  here  it  is  to-day.  Tliese  trees  liave  been  grafted  two 
years  and  three  years,  and  tliey  are  bearing.  On  this  fifty  acres 
ever  since  they  have  been  bearing,  every  nut,  practically,  has 


been  reiuovedj  so  that  last  year  on  this  fifty  acres  there  was 
scarcely  a  weevil,  and  scarcely  a  l)nrr  worm,  in  the  nuts  that  ma- 
tured there. 

Another  portion,  showing  young  trees  bending  over,  breaking 
down,  almost,  on  that  same  fifty  acres.  It  was  taken  in  1911, 
about  the  first  of  October.  The  trees  are  heavily  laden,  the  nuts 
perfect. 

Another  view  showing  the  sheep  doing  the  mowing.  The  cat- 
tle help  with  the  work.  Pigs  help,  but  I  do  not  have  a  photo- 
graph showing  them.  A  lot  of  them  were  put  in  after  the  crops 
Avere  gathered.  The  men  harvested  the  nuts  and  afterwards 
the  pigs  were  turned  in  and  found  enough  to  fatten  themselves. 
1  think  that  on  the  waste  mountain  land  in  this  State,  you  could 
fatten  on  chestnuts  all  the  pigs  that  we  raise,  if  we  used  it  for 
nothing  else. 

In  harvesting,  the  nuts  gathered  in  1911  were  hauled  to  a 
threshing  machine.  It  was  necessary  to  have  a  machine  made, 
the  problem  of  threshing  the  nuts,  getting  them  out  of  the  burrs, 
becoming  so  great.  This  shows  a  photograph  of  the  men  hauling 
the  burrs  before  they  are  quite  ripe,  and  placing  them  in  piles. 
They  ripen,  the  burrs  open,  and  the  nuts  can  then  be  picked  out. 

This  shows  another  pile  of  the  burrs.  Notice  that  they  are 
opening.  This  was  taken  a  little  later  and  the  nuts  were  matur- 
ing. 

Harvesting  before  we  had-  the  machine.  The  men  had  to  pick 
them  out.  The  nuts  were  taken  out  and  placed  in  sacks,  all 
by  hand.  This  shows  a  pile  of  burrs.  Every  burr  had  to  be 
opened  with  gloves,  and  it  was  very  tedious.  The  problem  was 
too  great,  so  that  a  threshing  machine  was  invented  by  Mr.  C.  K. 
Sober  especially  for  the  purpose  this  last  year,  and  this  vieAv 
shows  the  machine  in  operation.  The  nuts  were  hauled  in  piles 
in  the  burrs.  They  were  then  put  through  this  machine,  which 
is  run  by  a  little  gasoline  engine;  the  nuts  ran  out  into  a  basket, 
were  put  into  sacks,  and  later  they  were  loaded  and  carted  to  the 
house  to  be  assorted. 

This  is  the  assorting  room.  They  are  then  packed  in  boxes. 
Here  are  crates  filled  with  nuts.  Last  year  a  carload  was  sent 
to  Seattle,  Washington.  After  the  season  was  over,  orders  were 
taken  for  two  carloads  to  be  delivered  at  Seattle  next  fall,  and 


94 

the  same  man  may  take  the  entire  crop  next  year.  AVhat  that 
Avill  be  I  cannot  say.  This  year  it  was  between  three  and  fonr 
thousand  bushels,  including  good  and  bad  nuts. 

In  this  view  typical  burrs  are  slioAvn.  Notice  how  thin  the 
husks  are  on  many  of  them. 

Another  burr.  It  does  not  look  as  if  it  could  cover  the  nuts. 
In  fact,  it  could  not  now,  because  the  burr  has  shrunken  away 
as  it  dried  out,  leaving  the  nuts.  Four,  five  and  often  seven 
nuts  are  found  in  a  burr. 

This  view  sliows  seven  in  a  burr.  Notice  that  they  are 
crowded  in,  which  gives  them  irregular  shapes. 

In  this  view  the  nuts  in  the  lower  row  are  covering  silver  half 
dollars.  The  seven  below  measured  over  ten  inches.  Eight  of 
them  measured  thirteen  inches. 

In  this  view  the  nut  in  the  lower  right  hand  corner  is  covering 
a  silver  dollar;  the  other  four  covering  silver  half  dollars. 
Above,  are  typical  burrs. 

Here  are  thirty-two  selected  nuts,  measuring  one  quart. 
Another  group  of  the  burrs  as  they  were  taken  from  one  tree,  a 
little  seedling  three  years  old. 

Forest  fires  were  started  in  the  mountains  above  by  hunters, 
carelessly  or  otherwise.  They  run  down  into  the  grove,  so  that 
it  is  necessary  to  watch  cautiously.  Perhaps,  however,  the  burn- 
ing of  the  part  above  helped  to  destroy  some  of  the  weevils  and 
some  of  the  burr  worms ;  but  of  course  the  danger  is  that  it  will 
get  into  the  grove,  and  it  did  burn  over  nearly  ten  acres  at  one 
time.  This  view  shows  a  fire  lane;  the  building  of  a  fire  lane, 
between  a  grove  and  the  woods  above.  It  shows  what  the  grove 
would  have  been  had  it  not  been  cultivated  and  put  to  this  use. 
That  is  the  land  immediately  above  it,  full  of  chestnut  timber. 

This  shows  another  point,  showing  on  one  side  where  the  fire 
just  went  through.  It  did  not  get  into  the  grove.  The  trees  are 
dead,  not  from  the  blight  in  that  case,  but  from  the  fire.  It 
shows  on  the  other  side  chestnut  grafted  to  Paragon,  and  the 
four  hundred  acres  is  practically  surrounded  on  three  sides  by 
that  same  kind  of  timber. 

There  are  other  enemies.  Meadow  mice  girdle  the  young 
sprouts  at  times.     The  sprout  shown  in  this  view  was  girdled 


95 

by  a  meadow  mouse.  l>y  keeping  them  clean,  liowever,  cutting 
the  grass  away  and  burning  it  over,  the  meadow  mice  are  kept 
down  with  the  other  enemies. 

The  seventeen  year  locust  is  another  enemy.  There  is  a  brood 
of  them  every  three  of  four  years,  it  seems.  In  1903,  1906  and 
1910  thousands  of  them, — millions,  I  suppose, — came  out.  This 
is  one  view,  which  I  took  looking  np,  pointing  the  camera  into 
the  tree.  These  are  the  empty  skins  of  the  chrj^salides  as  they 
came  out  of  the  ground  into  the  tree,  the  cicadas  having  crawled 
out. 

This  view  shows  a  little  wild  indigo  plant,  on  which  there 
were  two  hundred  and  fifty  cicadas.  The  injury  comes  when 
they  deposit  their  eggs. 

The  next  view  shows  two  branches  recently  stung  by  the 
cicada.  The  eggs  are  deposited,  making  holes  through  which 
fungi  may  enter.  The  wind  blows  then  and  breaks  them  off 
at  places,  and  the  branches  fall  to  the  ground;  but  the  cicada 
has  left  holes  and  it  is  necessary  to  trim  off  the  branches  and 
prune.  This  view  shows  a  little  tree  that  has  been  pruned.  The 
dead  branches  are  below  and  of  course  there  is  not  much  left. 
This  interferes  with  the  bearing  of  that  tree.  A  tree  trimmed  in 
1910,  in  1911  had  no  bearing  wood  on  it ;  a  loss  of  the  nuts,  loss 
of  a  year's  crop,  because  of  the  cicada.  However,  if  the  limbs 
are  not  broken,  they  begin  to  heal. 

You  can  see  in  this  view  where  the  ovipositor  punctured  the 
wood.  This  was  stung  in  1906  and  the  i)hotograpli  was  taken  in 
1910.  They  are  slow  in  healing  np,  and  form  wounds  through 
which  the  spores  of  the  fungi  may  enter. 

This  view  shows  still  further  the  process  of  healing.  Some 
of  them  heal  up  entirely  and  apparently  suffer  nothing  from 
the  injury. 

This  tree  was  stripped  by  the  striped  oak  worm.  There  are 
other  enemies.  Mr.  Sober  and  I  have  been  fighting  enemies  for 
ten  years.  Nearly  every  one  discouraged  Mr.  Sober.  He  stood 
alone;  but  he  is  fighting  them,  and  will  continue  to  fight  them. 
In  spite  of  the  blight  and  in  spite  of  everything,  he  expects  to 
see  chestnut  trees  as  long  as  he  lives,  and  if  we  could  come  back 
in  two  hundred  years,  I  think  we  would  find  chestnut  trees  there. 

One  of  the  enemies  that  is  most  serious  is  the  burr  worm.     At 


9G 

the  time  tlie  cliestiiut  blossoms,  a  little  motli  lays  an  egg  on  the 
young  fruit.  The  egg  hatches  and  a  little  worm  burrows  its 
way  into  the  burr.  It  seems  to  prefer  living  on  the  burr  rather 
than  the  nut.  This  view  shows  what  I  have  called  the  "little" 
burr  worm.  Here  it  is.  It  lives  normally  in  the  burr.  Occa- 
sionally it  eats  into  the  nut,  but  it  does  not  like  the  nut,  but 
leaves  an  ugly  hole  and  the  nut  afterwards  frequently  moulds. 

This  shows  the  adult  moth,  the  Holcocera  Soherii.  It  is  very 
similar  to  the  Holcocera  glandulata,  but,  according  to  Kear- 
foot,  of  Montclair,  New  Jersey,  it  should  be  called  a  distinct 
species,  and  it  has  been  named  in  honor  of  Mr.  Sober.  This  is 
one  of  the  worst  enemies.  There  are  two  shown  in  this  view,  a 
"little"  and  a  "large"  one.  This  is  the  larger  one.  (Indicat- 
ing). I  have  tried  a  number  of  times  to  get  the  adult  of  that,  but 
I  have  failed  thus  far.  It  is  easy  to  get  them  in  the  larval  stage, 
— ^you  get  lots  of  larvae,— and  they  will  make  the  cocoons. 
Normally  the  cocoon  is  made  in  the  burr  and  fortunately  when 
the  burr  is  removed  the  cocoon  is  removed ;  but  I  have  not  been 
able  to  get  them  to  mature.  I  do  not  know  the  adult  of  this 
one. 

This  view  shows  the  hole  it  makes  into  the  nut.  It  is  cut 
away  to  show  it.  It  has  not  gone  in  very  far  and  this  has  re- 
moved all  the  injury  done.  The  other  one  is  the  injured  one, 
showing  the  spot,  in  the  edge  of  the  screen.  This  one  is  injured 
here.  (Indicating).  If  the  nuts  are  eaten  immediately  or  used, 
they  are  scarcely  injured;  but  if  tlu^y  are  allowed  to  stand  for  a 
time  spores  of  various  moulds  get  into  them  and  the  nuts  soon  rot 
entirely.  In  this  case  tliis  nut  shown  has  cracked  Ojpen,  and 
is  full  of  black  spores.  I  am  not  able  to  identify  all  the  moulds ; 
some  of  them  resemble  very  much  the  ordinary  bread  mould. 

Insect  traps  were  made  by  Mr.  Sober  in  1910  and  placed 
throughout  the  grove,  and  thousands  of  moths,  many  of  them 
belonging  to  the  same  genus,  the  Holcocera,  were  caught  in  these 
traps.  Lanterns  were  suspended  from  the  trees  beneath  which 
were  these  tin  arrangements,  and  below  was  a  pan  of  water  on 
which  was  placed  a  little  oil.  That  arrangement  caught  thou- 
sands of  moths.     That  is  one  method  of  controlling  the  enemy. 

The  grove  is  full  of  birds.  There  are  many  blue  birds,  and 
nest  boxes  have  been  put  up.     I  do    not  know  whether  it  is  a  good 


07 

X^lan  to  encourage  the  birds  or  not.  The  woodpeckers  are  there, 
feeding  on  insects  and  the  beetle  larvae  under  the  bark.  It  may 
be  a  good  chance  to  spread  the  chestnut  blight,  but  they  help  to 
control  the  moths.  They  feed  on  hundreds  of  them.  You  see 
them  hunting  everywhere.  The  insect-loving  birds  are  there. 
You  find  the  vireos,  the  red-eyed  vireo  especially;  you  find  the 
American  redstart;  you  find  warblers.  They  are  there  looking- 
for  the  moths  and  weevils.  Chickens  were  placed  in  the  grove. 
They  search  for  grubs  and  everything  they  can  find  and,  of 
course,  in  doing  that  they  destroy  many  of  the  chestnut  weevils 
and  the  grubs  of  other  worms. 

This  view  shows  the  chestnut  weevil,  the  Belaninus,  on  the 
burr.  These  can  be  controlled  by  removing  the  burrs  imme- 
diately, before  they  have  time  to  come  out  on  the  nut. 

This  view  shows  them  at  work.  Several  females  were  placed 
on  this  burr,  which  I  have  cut  in  two. 

This  view  shows  the  long,  beaklike  proboscis.  There  is 
another  one,  and  another  in  the  corner.  There  was  another 
one  here,  but  it  crawled  around  too  much  to  be  photographed. 
How  the  eggs  are  deposited,  I  cannot  say,  but  in  some  way,  I 
think  through  that  long  beak.  They  have  two  slim  feelers, 
with  which  they  can  take  the  eggs  from  the  ovipositor  to  the  end 
of  the  beak.  This  view  shows  a  big  one.  The  w^eevil,  as  you  can 
see  in  the  next  photograph,  never  withdrew  its  beak.  There  it 
is,  in  the  picture.  This  was  removed  and  in  its  place  larvae 
developed.  I  have  taken  out  of  one  nut  as  many  as  fifty-five 
grubs  of  the  Belunius. 

This  view  shows  them  maturing.  In  this  one  there  Avere  .as 
many  as  thirty  larvae. 

This  view  shows  them  in  different  stages ;  they  are  practically 
mature.  When  tliey  are  mature,  they  come  out  through  the 
little  hole  in  the  nut  and  burrow  in  the  ground.  They  remain 
there  until  June  or  July,  when  they  transform  into  pupae.  The 
next  view  sliows  six  of  them  taken  in  July.  In  about  two  weeks 
they  mature.  Tlie  next  view  shows  six  adults,  three  male  and 
three  female.  I  think  in  some  way  the  eggs  are  taken  by  means 
of  these  appendages  which  will  reach  the  end  of  the  bill  and 


98 

reach  the  ovipositor.  I  have  never  been  able  to  see  them  do  it, 
but  in  some  way  I  think  the  eggs  must  be  inserted  by  this 
method. 

The  demand  for  the  Paragon  nut  has  come  from  all  over  the 
United  States,  and  it  was  necessary  to  start  a  nursery.  Mr. 
Sober,  with  the  cleanliness  he  practices,  will  keep  this  going  in 
spite  of  the  blight.  He  put  aAvay  last  fall  three  hundred 
bnshels  of  nuts,  burying  them,  and  now  a  little  later  they  will 
begin  to  sprout.  When  they  are  sprouted,  in  beds  of  sand, 
they  are  taken  out  and  planted.  The  method  is  before  the  nuts 
are  planted,  to  pinch  the  large  tap  roots  off  at  this  point,  so 
that  a  fibrous  root  is  started.  Otherwise  this  (indicating)  is 
wliat  you  get,  and  it  is  hard  to  transplant  that  tree  and  have  it 
live.  To  pinch  off  that  root,  or  to  put  it  in  horizontal  position, 
Avill  develop  fibrous  roots.  This  one  was  not  pinched  off,  but 
was  planted  with  the  tap  root  in  a  horizontal  position,  and  you 
see  the  result.  This  nut  (another  view)  was  jDlanted  and  al- 
lowed to  develop  for  itself;  and  you  see  the  difference  between 
the  two. 

The  nuts  are  planted  in  rows,  and  here  you  see  them  after 
the  first  summer's  growth  in  the  nursery. 

Here  they  are,  two  years  old,  ready  to  be  grafted.  Some  of 
the  seedlings  bear  the  second  year  and  third  year,  but  they  are 
not  true  Paragon.  Some  of  them  may  be  better.  Last  year 
fifty  seedlings,  tAVo  and  three  years  old,  had  nuts  on  them. 

This  view  shows  men  engaged  in  grafting  these  seedlings  with 
the  Paragon.     This  gives  an  idea  of  the  size  of  one  nursery. 

This  view  shows  one  season's  growth  after  grafting  on  the 
seedling.  You  see  it  is  nearly  five  feet  high, — one  season  of 
growth,  grafted  on  a  seedling  two  years  old.  It  is  then  trimmed 
back,  of  course. 

There  is  one  grafted  one  year,  bearing  a  nut  at  that  point  and 
two  nuts  at  that  point,  and  still  others  here.     They  are  grafted. 

Large  trees  can  be  transplanted,  but  not  successfully.  It  is 
very  hard  to  get  a  tree  that  is  five  or  six  years  old  to  stand  trans- 
planting. It  does  not  pay  to  transplant  the  larger  trees.  Oc- 
casionally they  will  live,  but  the  others  soon  grow  and  catch  up 
with  them. 


Now  Ave  will  go  to  the  barn  and  get  onr  horse  and  go  back  to 
the  station   at   Paxinos.     Good  night.      (Applause). 

DE.  MICKLEBO.ROUGII :  AVill  you  permit  a  question? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  We  will. 

DR.  MICKLEBOROUGH  :  I  A^  ould  like  to  ask  the  Rrofessor 
if  the  blight  has  a^Dpeared  in  the  Irish  A^alley? 

THE  CHAIRMAN :  If  you  do  not  mind  withholding  that  ques- 
tion for  just  a  minute,  I  want  to  make  an  announcement,  and 
then  we  are  going  to  throw  the  doors  open  to  discussion.  At 
the  afternoon  session  you  directed  the  Chairman  to  appoint  a 
Committee  on  Resolutions,  this  committee  to  include  the  Chair- 
man of  the  Conference.  The  Chairman  requested  that  persons 
attending  the  Conference  should  offer  suggestions  as  to  who 
should  be  included  on  this  committee.  He  did  not  receive  as 
many  suggestions  as  he  would  like  to  have  had,  but  he  did  receive 
a  good  many,  and  every  person  who  was  suggested  has  beeta 
appointed.  ' 

The  committee  as  made  up,  is  as  follows: 

Ex-officio,  Raymond  A.  Pearson,  Chairman  of  the  Conference. 

Maine,  Charles  E.  Lewis. 

New  Hampshire, Philip  W.  Ayres. 

Massachusetts,    F.  W.  Rane. 

Rhode  Island,   Jesse  B.  Mowry. 

Connecticut,    George  P.  Clinton. 

New  York,   G.  G.  Atwood, 

H.  P.  Marshall, 

George  L.   Barrus. 

New  Jersey,  Melville  T.  Cook. 

Pennsylvania,   I.  C.  Williams, 

Harold  Peirce, 

^Y.  T.  Creasy, 

Henry  S.  Drinker. 

Delaware,   Wesley  Webb. 

Maryland,    J.  B.  S.  Norton, 

William  McCulloh  Brown. 
Virginia, George  A.  Kerr, 

George  B.  Keezell. 


100 

AVest  Virginia, N.  J.  Giddings. 

Ohio,    A.  D.  Selby. 

H.  H.  Bechtel. 

North  Carolina, H.  R.  Fulton. 

Tennessee, J.  W.  Fisher. 

Canada,    Dr.  H.  T.  Gnssow. 

In  a  very  rough  way,  it  has  been  endeavored  to  liave  the  num- 
ber of  members  from  the  States  indicate  something  as  to  tlie 
number  of  persons  who  accepted  invitations  to  attend  this  Con- 
ference. The  Chair  will  suggest  that  the  members  of  the  com- 
mittee meet  in  the  seats  at  the  right  of  the  Chair  immediately 
after  adjournment  this  evening,  for  the  purpose  of  organizing. 
Now,  according  to  the  program,  we  are  to  have  a  general  discus- 
sion. Tlie  presiding  officer  almost  feels  tliat  lie  should  offer 
you  an  apology,  because  he  is  not  personally  accpiainted  with  all 
the  persons  who  may  wish  to  speak.  He  appreciates  that  there 
are  some  illustrious  persons  in  the  audience  and  that  he  ought 
to  know  them;  but,  as  he  does  not  know  everyone,  he  will  ask 
again  that  each  person,  on  rising,  whether  known  to  the  Chair  or 
not,  will  first  announce  his  name  and  the  name  of  his  State 
clearly. 

The  papers  that  we  have  heard  are  all  before  you  for  discus- 
sion. It  is  your  meeting.  The  Chairman  is  your  servant,  and 
if  you  desire  to  have  the  course  of  procedure  changed  in  any 
way  at  any  time,  it  is  your  duty  so  to  state.  We  will  now  hear 
the  first  question. 

DE.  MICKLEBOKOUCiH,  of  Brooklyn:  My  question  was,  Mr. 
Chairman,  Avhether  the  DiaportJw  pdra.siUca  had  appeared  in 
the  Irish  Valley. 

PROFESSOR  DAVIS :  Yes;  it  has  appeared  there,  but  in  that 
grove  for  the  last  ten  years  every  sign  of  anj^thing  suspicious 
has  been  cut  out,  and  the  nursery  inspector  who  went  through 
the  grounds  found  forty-four  thousand  and  thirty-five  trees  that 
are  free  from  it.  If  there  were  some  signs  that  were  suspicious, 
these  trees  were  cut.  If  it  is  there  now,  it  is  practically  under 
control,  and  it  is  very,  very  hard  to  find  it.  We  are  not  certain 
always  that  it  is  there.     There  is  one  disease  that  follows  up  a 


101 

fire  that  so  closely  resembles  it  that  it  is  hard  to  tell  it.  It  is 
sometimes  doubtful.  I  have  not,  however,  found  any  ascospores 
there  this  fall.  The  nursery  stock  shows  nothing  at  all.  The 
idea  is  to  keep  it  clean,  cut  out  everything,  so  we  do  not  wait  to 
see  whether  it  is  there  or  not. 

DE.  J.  RUSSELL  Sx\lITH,  of  Pennsylvania:  Mr.  Chairman: 
before  the  cutters-out  and  anti-cutters-out  begin  taking  up  the 
questions  of  the  afternoon,  I  want  to  speak  about  one  point  in 
connection  with  the  recent  lecture.  Mr.  Davis  stated,  in  j)ass- 
ing,  tliat  the  waste  land  of  tJiis  State  would  feed  as  many  pigs 
as  the  whole  State  produces.  ^Ve  have  lots  of  pigs,  yet  that 
assertion  as  to  the  possibilities  of  the  waste  land  is  understated. 

Man,  in  looking  at  the  botanical  realm,  began  at  the  wrong 
end.  When  the  human  r-ace  looked  at  the  hundred  thousand 
species  of  plants,  it  picked  out  little  measley  grasses,  with  a 
grain  or  two  of  seed,  from  which  it  developed  rye,  corn  and  wheat, 
while  here  were  the  giants  of  nature,  bearing  hickory  nuts,  wal- 
nuts, persimmons,  peaches,  apples,  and  pears;  yet  very  few  of 
them  have  been  improved,  for  the  reason  that,  for  the  annual 
cropper,  his  grains  permit  of  easy  improvement  and  the  big 
trees,  with  their  slow  generations,  were  very  difficult  to  improve. 
Yet  they  are  the  potential  heavy  harvest  yielders.  AVherever  we 
find  land  put  over  to  tree  crops,  it  yields  several  fold  the  annual 
crop.  Chestnut-growing  in  Europe,  as  in  Italy  for  example,  is 
an  established  industry.  Official  reports  show  an  annual  pro- 
duction of  chestnuts  in  Italy  of  thirteen  bushels  to  the  acre,  and 
I  know,  by  examination  of  the  orchards,  that  they  are  not  in  any 
way  in  a  high  class  condition  or  very  carefully  attended  to  in 
many  localities.  We  average  at  least  that,  with  the  American 
standard  of  weight  per  acre,  in  the  United  States.  I  have  not 
a  doubt  that  if  some  of  those  big  Japanese  chestnuts  were  bred, 
selected,  and  hybridized,  we  could  get  varieties  of  chestnuts 
which  would  yield  fifteen  or  twenty  bushels  per  acre  on  the  aver- 
age, of  first-class  pig  feed.  Furthermore,  it  permits  the  use  of 
land  which  is  now  entirely  unusable  for  anything  except  forest, 
which  is  a  very  low  grade  producer  of  annual  casli  value.  For 
example,  to-day  on  the  train  between  here  and  Philadelphia  I 
saw  a  block  of  ground  which  covers  twenty-two  tliousand  acres, 


102 

and  is  itself  covered  witli  stones.  It  is  lauglied  at  by  the  Lan- 
caster county  people,  and  it  is  rocky;  but  chestnut  trees  are 
sticking  their  roots  between  the  rocks  which  cover  the  surface 
and  reaching  down  into  the  good,  strong  clay  beneath,  and  that 
twenty  thousand  acres  of  good,  strong  clay  is  more  potentially 
productive  than  the  tops  of  the  Apennines,  which  are  to-day 
yielding  thirteen  bushels  to  the  acre. 

So  in  the  chestnut  we  have  something  more  to  consider  in  po- 
tentiality than  mere  timber.  The  time  is  coming  when  we 
will  put  one  hundred  dollars  in  the  breeding  of  tree  crops  and 
get  ten  thousand  dollars  for  the  people  of  the  next  decade.  (Ap- 
plause). 

DE.  MERKEL,  of  New  York  City:  Mr.  Chairman:  I  would 
like  to  ask  Mr.  Davis  a  point  that  does  not  apj)ear  quite  clear  to 
me.  Was  the  blight  kept  out  of  the  orchard,  or  out  of  the  entire 
valley  and  out  of  the  surrounding  country? 

PROFESSOR  DAVIS  :  It  is  in  the  valley,  but  just  beginning, 
apparently,  to  appear.  I  have  hunted  through  there  and  hunted 
days  at  a  time  without  finding  any  evidence.  Yet  I  have  found 
evidences  of  what  apparently  is  the  genuine  Diaporthc,  as  I  saw 
it  on  Long  Island ;  and  I  will  say  that  I  think  I  saw  the  blight  on 
Long  Island  in  1897,  or  1898.  It  was  at  the  time  when  the  Long 
Island  road  was  building  a  log  cabin  near  Cold  Spring  Harbor. 
Mr.  Jarvis  was  the  carpenter  building  the  cabin,  out  of  chestnut 
logs,  and,  when  he  pulled  the  bark  off,  under  that  was  found  what 
we  recognize  now  as  the  chestnut  blight.  Mr.  Jarvis  and  I  dis- 
cussed it,  and  did  not  know  what  it  was.  It  was  in  patches;  on 
some  of  the  logs  which  were  ten  to  fifteen  inches  in  diameter,  the 
patches  were  as  large  as  my  hat,  and  I  do  not  doubt  in  some 
cases  that  the  trees  were  girdled  entirely  and  the  trees  were 
dying.  That  was  at  Cold  Spring  Harbor,  and  I  also  saw  some  of 
the  same  thing  between  Cold  Spring  Harbor  and  Huntingdon, 
and  especially  back  of  Huntingdon,  through  the  hills  around 
there.  So  I  think  it  was  in  1898  well  established  in  those  locali- 
ties. Of  course,  I  cannot  prove  that  is  what  it  was,  but  I  have 
seen  so  much  of  it  near  Cold  Spring  Harbor  that  I  think  it  is 
the  same  thina:. 


Seedlings  from  Paragon  nuts — to  be  grafted  with  Sober  Paragon  chestnuts. 


Paragou    chestnut    trees,    9   years    after   grafting   uu    native    sprouts 


103 

DR.  MERKEL:  Then,  apparently,  the  clean-cutting  in  this 
case,  unfortunately,  is  not  a  proof  that  the  fungus  can  be  kept 
out,  because  it  has  not  been  present  long  enough;  is  that  the 
idea? 

PROFESSOR  DAVIS :  Yes. 

DR.  A.  K.  FISHER,  of  the  Bureau  of  Biological  Survey, 
Washington:  Mr.  Chairman:  I  would  like  to  ask  Dr.  Stewart 
what  evidence  he  has  to  show  tliat  l>irds  are  important  factors 
in  spreading  the  disease?  Dr.  Metcalf  inade  that  statement 
in  the  Farmers'  Bulletin,  that  birds  were  one  of  the  important 
factors  in  spreading  the  blight,  but,  in  private  conversation 
with  the  doctor,  he  stated  that  he  had  no  positive  evidence;  but 
that  birds  traveled  here,  hence,  thence,  and  he  thought  it  most 
probable.  Now  the  very  birds  which  are  accused  of  carrying- 
blight  are  the  woodpeckers,  which  are  more  or  less  stationary  in 
their  life  history;  especially  the  downy  woodpecker.  There  is 
no  V  ay  of  telling  just  how  far  a  bird  will  go  from  the  nest  in 
which  it  was  born,  but  there  is  pretty  good  reason  to  believe  that 
the  downy  woodpecker  never  goes  over  four  or  five  miles  from  its 
home.  In  fact,  a  woodland  of  a  few  hundred  acres  will  hold  a 
pair  or  more  of  birds,  which  probably  live  there  throughout  their 
lives.  I  know  of  one  or  two  pairs  near  Washington  that  we  are 
reasonably  sure  to  see  at  any  time  of  the  year.  It  seems  to  me 
that  wind  and  weather,  which  carry  other  forms  of  diseases,  are 
very  much  more  liable  to  carry  the  germs  of  this  disease.  When 
wind  will  carry  heavy  articles  a  thousand  miles  and,  it  is  said, 
carry  volcanic  dust  half  way  around  the  globe,  it  seems  to  me 
that  we  do  not  have  to  look  to  birds  or  mammals,  or  even  in- 
sects, as  the  means  of  spreading  the  disease,  when  other  known 
factors  are  present. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Dr.  Fisher  asks  Dr.  Stewart  what  evi- 
dence he  has  that  birds  are  resj)onsible  for  carrying  the  chestnut 
tree  blight. 

DR.  STEWART:  The  evidence  is  largely  inferential.  This 
should  be  considered :  Many  of  the  infections, — in  fact.  Dr.  Met- 
calf states  a  majority  of  the  infections, — occur  in  the  tunnels 
made  by  borers.     The  borers  are  in  those  (niuicls.     Woodpeck- 


104 

ers  go  after  the  borers.  Spores  are  produced  iu  enormous  num- 
bers right  around  those  tunnels.  It  is  inevitable  that  the  wood- 
peckers will  get  the  spores  on  their  bills  and  on  their  feet  and  on 
other  parts  of  their  bodies.  Those  birds,  when  they  go  away, 
will  carry  those  spores  with  them  and"  leave  them  where  they 
alight  the  next  time.  If  they  happen  to  fall  in  a  wound  of  some 
kind  and  the  conditions  are  favorable,  the  infection  is  going  to 
occur.  That  is  the  kind  of  evidence.  It  is  inferential.  As  for 
actually  knowing  that  infections  have  resulted  in  that  way,  we 
have  no  evidence.  Of  course,  it  is  exceedingly  difficult,  if  not 
impossible,  to  get  it.  As  to  the  migration  of  the  woo<lpeckers, 
I  have  it  on  tlie  authority  of  a  competent  ornithologist  that  some 
kinds  of  them  do  travel  long  distances. 

DE.  FISHER :  There  are  certain  forms  of  woodpeckers  which 
go  south  in  winter,  but  those  are  not  the  birds  which  are  highly 
specialized  which  secure  their  food  from  the  trees.  They  are 
birds  which  seek  their  food  like  the  flicker,  which  feeds  largely 
on  nuts,  and  the  redheaded  woodpecker,  which  feeds  quite  ex- 
tensively on  grasshoppers  and  other  insects,  as  well  as  fruits; 
but  our  woodpeckers,  our  native,  resident  woodpeckers,  are 
rarely  migrators.  As  to  the  injury  to  the  trees,  the  nut  gath- 
erers, it  seems  to  me,  produce  very  many  more  wounds  than  the 
woodpeckers  produce.  They  either  jar  the  smaller  trees  with 
stones  that  break  the  bark  and  form  places  for  the  insertion  of 
the  germs,  or  they  use  climbers  which  injure  the  bark,  and  enter 
the  wood  very  much  further  than  the  woodpecker's  bill  does. 

MR.  DETWILER :  I  have  the  report  of  a  field  agent  who  has 
been  investigating  the  relation  of  birds  to  the  carrying  of  dis- 
ease. This  investigation  has  been  in  progress  only  about  a 
month,  and  the  data  is  of  an  elementary  character.  However, 
there  are  two  paragraphs  which  have  a  bearing  on  this  subject. 
First,  the  field  agent  says: 

"I  can  truthfully  state  that  every  blighted  tree  I  have  seen 
since  I  have  begun  this  study,  has  had  its  bark  punctured  by 
woodpeckers,  in  most  cases  with  scores  of  holes." 

The  other  pertinent  observation  is: 


105 

"We  were  surprised  hj  the  large  number  of  grubs  we  were  able 
to  find  in  infected  trees.  Tliey  seemed,  too,  to  be  generally  dis- 
tributed throughout  the  bark  of  the  tree." 

The  inference  being  that  the  grubs  attract  the  woodpeckers  to 
the  blighted  portions  of  the  tree  particularly. 

PEOFESSOR  DAVIS :  jNlr.  Sober  wishes  me  to  extend  an  in- 
vitation to  any  of  3'OU,  or  all  of  you,  to  visit  his  place,  when  he 
will  show  you  this  grove  in  person.  I  forgot  to  mention  it  in 
the  lecture,  but  he  invites  you  to  meet  him  at  the  Paxinos  station 
at  any  time. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  How  early  are  the  chestnuts  ripe? 

PROFESSOR  DAVIS :  The  chestnuts  are  ripe  in  the  latter 
part  of  October. 

DR.  A.  H.  GRAVES,  of  New  Haven:  Mr.  Chairman:  There  is 
one  thing  that  has  been  overlooked  here,  and  that  is  that  the 
spores  are  very  sticky  in  these  exudations  from  the  pustules. 
They  all  stick  together,  and  the  wind  would  carry  these  spores 
with  great  difficulty ;  so  that  the  theory  of  the  spores  sticking  to 
the  feet  of  birds  seems  very  plausible,  for  that  principal  reason. 
The  si)ores  miglit  possibly  be  washed  down  the  tree  by  the  rain 
and  mingle  with  the  dust  at  the  base  of  the  tree;  but,  as  is  said 
somewhere  by  some  authority,  these  chestnut  trees  do  not  usually 
grow  in  the  dusty  places.  The  spores  that  are  washed  down  the 
tree  would  be  covered  up  by  leaves  and  there  would  be  very  lit- 
tle likelihood  that  the  wind  Avould  carry  them.  I  think,  Mr. 
Chairman,  the  sticky  nature  of  the  spores  should  be  considered 
in  this  connection,  with  the  dissemination  of  the  spores  by  birds 
and  insects. 

DR.  W.  J.  GIDDINGS,  of  West  Virginia:  Mr.  Chairman:  I 
want  to  say  something  more  in  regard  to  the  means  of  control 
of  this  disease;  and  I  have  one  suggestion  that  has  occurred  to 
me  during  the  afternoon  and  evening  sessions:  That  is  the  pos- 
sibility, in  states  where  tliey  do  not  feel  it  would  be  wise  to 
make  the  inspection  a  thorough  inspection,  to  send  out  men  to 
do  plot  work, — I  believe  that  is  the  proper  term, — such  as  is  done 
in  forestr3^  They  can  pick  ont  a  certain  small  section  where 
there  are  chestnuts,  and  determine  the  number  of  chestnut  trees 


106 

there,  and  the  anioniit  of  infection.  Not  only  that,  bnt  they  can 
find  out  if  there  is  old  infection  there.  In  that  way  we  can  find 
out  whether  there  has  been  infection  in  America  for  a  number 
of  years,  as  has  been  suggested  by  some,  and  possibly  get  those 
states  interested,  if  the  infection  appears  to  be  spreading.  In 
some  places  that  I  have  seen  lately  there  was  evidence  of  the  dis- 
ease working  on  trees  that  Avere  partly  dead,  but  we  should  find 
out  more  about  that  while  the  work  is  going  on. 

DR.  J.  W.  HARSHBERGER,  University  of  Penna. :  Mr. 
Chairman:  Professor  SteAvart,  in  his  communication  this  af- 
ternoon, discouraged  the  work  which  is  being  done  by  the  Penn- 
sylvania Chestnut  Blight  Commission  in  the  removal  of  trees 
along  the  outposts  of  the  disease.  I  would  like  to  present  my 
view  of  the  problem,  because  I  think  it  is  largely  a  question  of 
the  attitude  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  toward  these  larger 
questions  of  conservation  which  have  agitated  the  country  for 
the  past  few  years. 

Pennsylvania  is  the  Keystone  State.  She  is  so  situated  with 
regard  to  the  other  states  of  the  Atlantic  Seaboard  that  she  oc- 
cupies a  central  position,  halfway  between  the  North  and  the 
South.  It  would  be  to  the  lasting  shame  of  Pennsylvania  if  she 
would  let  the  opportunity  pass  of  taking  some  means  of  attempt- 
ing to  check  the  disease.  The  states  to  the  south  and  west  of 
us,  Ohio  and  West  Virginia,  Virginia  and  Tennessee  and  North 
Carolina,  which  are  very  largely  concerned  in  this  movement, 
Avould  point  to  Pennsylvania  as  having  let  the  opportunity  slip 
of  doing  something  to  check  the  ravages  of  this  disease.  Tavo 
hundred  and  seventy-five  thousand  dollars  seems  a  large  sum 
of  money  to  appropriate  for  the  prevention  of  the  destruction 
of  property ;  that  is,  it  seems  a  large  sum  to  use  in  the  combating 
of  a  single  disease.  Yet  Pennsylvania  is  a  wealthy  State,  and, 
if  we  take  the  many  millions  of  dollars  Avhich  are  at  stake,  the 
amount  of  money  Avhich  tlie  State  has  appropriated  is  merely 
a  drop  in  the  bucket,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  the  money  is  Avell 
spent,  because  we  are  standing,  as  a  buffer  State,  betAveen  the  on- 
spread  of  this  disease  from  the  locality  Avhere  it  started,  and  tlie 
States  beyond.  In  the  future,  Avhen  we  look  back  on  the  history 
of  the  conservation  movement  in  the  United  States,  this  move- 


107 

uieiit  in  Pennsylvania  AAdll  be  held  up  as  an  example  of  a  patrio- 
tic movement  of  the  entire  people  in  an  attempt  to  prevent  the 
destruction  of  our  native  forests,  which  are  going  all  too  fast. 
So  this  movement,  it  seems  to  me  from  my  standpoint,  is  one 
of  the  most  commendable  things  which  has  been  done  by  any 
State  in  recent  years  and,  even  if  no  direct  result  is  reached,  we 
can  point  with  pride  to  the  attempt  which  has  been  made  to 
check  the  disease. 

At  one  point  there  occurred  to  me  a  little  story  that  was  told 
in  connection  with  the  remarks  of  Professor  Clinton  this  after- 
noon, when  the  paper  of  Professor  Farlow  was  read.  Professor 
Farlow  suggested  that  the  chestnut  blight  came  from  Italy.  A 
friend  of  mine,  a  botanist  in  New  York  city,  said  that  he  had 
often  noticed  that  around  the  settlements  of  Italians  in  the 
neighborhood  of  New  York  and  Brooklyn  and  Jersey  City,  these 
smaller  settlements  that  the  Italians  made  outside  the  city,  that 
the  trees  always  died  or  were  killed,  and  he  thought  there  was 
some  relation  between  the  death  of  the  trees  and  the  settlement 
of  the  Italians  nearby.  So  he  suggested  rather  a  curious  name 
for  this  malady  which  attacked  the  trees — he  said  it  was  a  form 
of  "Dagoeatis."  So  perhaps,  if  Professor  Farlow's  views  are 
correct,  the  trees  which  were  killed  on  Long  Island  suffered  from 
a  form  of  "Dagoeatis."  That,  you  may  observe,  has  no  scientific 
relativity  in  the  discussion  of  this  subject. 

MK.  CHESTEE  E.  CHILD,  President  Lumber  Manufactur- 
ers' Association  of  Connecticut :  Mr.  Chairman :  I  noticed  on  the 
map  presented  tliis  afternoon  that  it  appears  that  chestnut  trees 
are  practically  dead  in  three-quarters  of  Connecticut.  I  noticed 
coming  down  on  the  train,  between  New  Haven  and  New  York, 
that  there  are  a  great  many  dead  chestnut  trees,  and  yet  there 
remain  a  great  many  that  are  alive.  I  know  that  along  the 
Connecticut  Kiver,  where  the  blight  is  supposed  to  be  working 
quite  freely,  that  in  a  tract  of  timber  which  was  sold  on  account 
of  the  blight  being  in  it,  it  was  stated  that  at  least  ten  per  cent, 
of  tlie  chestnut  trees  were  affected.  I  know  two  men  about  sixty 
years  of  age  who  state  that  tliey  are  positive  tliat  they  saw  this 
blight  twenty  years  ago,  or  something  that  looked  the  same  as 
is  shown  in  the  blight  to-day, — that  they  saw  tlie  same  thing 
twenty  years  ago.     I  would  like  to  ask,  unless  the  information 


108 

is  reserved  to  be  given  ns  toniorroAV  moi'iiing,  wlietlier  tlierc  is 
any  data  to  sIioav  wliat  the  expense  is  to  cut  ont,  remove  and  take 
np  the  infected  chestnut  trees  where  the  blight  is  known  to  be 
working. 

ME.  I.  C.  WILLIAMS:  In  answer  to  the  gentleman's  ques- 
tion, I  would  like  to  say  that  the  Chestnut  Blight  Commis- 
sion has  no  data  at  hand  which  will  answer  him  directly.  The 
work  of  the  Commission  has  not  been  specificially  directed  to 
cutting  out  diseased  trees,  but  has  been  in  the  direction  of  urg- 
ing persons  to  do  that.  It  has  not  been  possible  to  follow  that 
work  sufficiently  closel}^  to  make  an  approximation  of  just  what 
that  cost  would  be.  The  effort  that  is  being  made  in  Pennsyl- 
vania will  be  more  minutely  described  to-morrow  morning,  and 
I  do  not  feel  that  it  would  be  fair  to  trespass  seriously  upon 
that  paper  tliis  evening;  but  what  evidence  there  is,  and  what 
knowledge  we  have  on  that  subject,  will  be  laid  before  you  in 
the  morning  in  the  first  paper. 

Some  of  the  speakers  this  afternoon  seemed  to  be  utterly  ap- 
palled at  the  fact  that  Pennsylvania  has  thrown  two  hundred 
and  seventy-five  thousand  dollars  into  a  rathole.  Now  it  may 
be  of  interest  to  this  meeting  at  this  time  to  realize  that  the 
whole  work  thus  far  accomplislied  by  this  Commission  has  been 
at  an  expense  of  twenty  thousand  one  hundred  and  forty-three 
dollars.  That  leaves  a  considerable  margin  of  the  two  hundred 
and  seventy-five  thousand  dollars  upon  wliicli  Ave  are  privileged 
to  go  until  the  first  of  June,  1913.   (Applause). 

This  Commission  is  built  upon  business  principles.  It  is  not 
being  dashed  about  wildly,  like  a  potato  in  a  tub,  not  know- 
ing what  it  is  doing  or  Avhere  it  is  going.  It  is  trying  to  find 
its  way.  It  may  be  that  it  will  get  lost  in  the  blighted  chestnut 
woods,  but  we  are  going  to  make  an  honest  endeavor  to  get  out 
of  the  woods.  Every  known  method,  and  a  lot  of  methods  that 
are  not  known  and  about  which  we  heard  a  good  deal  this  after- 
noon, will  be  tried.  If  there  is  any  virtue  in  them,  tliey  will 
be  followed  to  a  finality.  If  there  is  no  virtue  in  them,  we  want 
the  world  to  know  it, — the  sooner  the  better.  Tlie  mere  fact  that 
somebody  believes  that  something  cannot  be  done  is  going  to 
have  mighty  little  weight  in  the  work  of  this  Commission.  (Ap- 
plause).     We  do  not  care  a  rap  what  someone's  belief  is.    If  he 


109 

has  SLTij  facts  to  bring"  to  ns  and  lay  before  us,  we  are  willing 
to  accept  them.  We  want  facts ;  we  Avant  knowledge.  AVe  have 
heard  a  great  deal  about  scientific  inquiry.  I  understand  that 
science  is  the  pursuit  of  knowledge,  and  that  its  business  is  to 
get  facts.  Science  sinijoly  describes.  It  has  nothing  to  do  with 
explanations.  Therefore,  if  science  will  describe  to  us  the  things 
that  we  are  trying  to  learn,  we  will  be  greatly  indebted  to  science, 
and  we  by  no  means  are  in  a  position,  nor  do  we  wish  it  to  be  so 
understood  that  we  attempt  to  turn  our  backs  upon  scientific 
inquiry.  The  truth  is  that  this  Commission  wants  all  the  facts 
it  can  get.  It  wants  the  help  of  every  scientist  in  the  land  who 
is  interested  enough  to  pursue  a  line  of  work  and  make  deduc- 
tions therefrom  that  are  useful  in  a  work  of  this  kind.  We  want 
to  go  hand  in  hand  with  everybody  who  can  lend  an  iota  of 
strength  to  this  work;  but  we  do  not  care  to  join  hands  with 
those  who  see  simply  gloom  and  failure,  and  are  unwilling  to 
make  any  decent  eifort  to  determine  whether  or  not  a  thing  can 
or  cannot  be  done.  The  experiments  that  are  being  made  by 
the  Commission  are  for  the  purpose  of  finding  out.  We  heard  a 
great  deal  about  the  ineffectualness  of  the  cutting-out  method 
of  combating  this  disease,  or  checking  its  spread.  I  do  not  know 
upon  what  foundation  or  upon  what  premises  these  conclusions 
are  drawn.  We  have  attempted  to  follow  the  progress  of  this 
inquiry  and  the  knowledge  on  the  subject  as  closely  as  possible, 
and  yet  gentlemen  tell  us  that  it  is  absolutely  ineffectual.  Now 
I  would  like  them  to  tell  us  why  it  is  ineffectual,  and  how  much 
cutting  out  they  have  done,  and  what  real  knowledge  they  have 
derived  from  that  kind  of  work.  If  it  is  going  to  turn  upon 
someone's  opinion,  then  I  would  like  this  meeting  to  believe  that 
probably  one  man's  opinion  is  as  good  as  another's.  If  it  is  not, 
let  us  find  out  why.  I  would  like  to  ask  Mr.  Stewart,  in  respect 
to  one  sentence  in  his  paper  this  afternoon,  which  you  will  re- 
member was  one  continued  negation,  I  would  like  to  ask  him  to 
tell  us  why  in  that  paper  he  broke  away  from  the  negative  atti- 
tude and,  in  the  very  closing  moments,  took  a  positive  stand  in 
that  he  recommended  the  restriction  of  the  movement  of  nursery 
stock.  Now  if  there  is  no  use  in  cutting  out  a  diseased  tree,  if 
there  is  no  real  effectual  value  in  doing  any  work  of  any  kind,  if, 
we  are  simply  to  sit  down  and  let  things  go  and  take  their  course, 


110 

if  we  are  going  to  throw  up  our  hands  in  impotent  helplessness 
and  say  "It  is  the  will  of  Allah,"  why  would  he  restrict  the  move- 
ment of  nursery  stock?  If  there  is  any  real  reason  for  that,  let  us 
have  it.  I  do  not  remember  that  the  Professor  stated  his  reason. 
That  is  one  of  the  questions  his  paper  raised  in  my  mind.  I 
do  not  wish  to  take  more  of  your  time,  because  these  ought  to 
be  only  short  discussions.  If  Professor  Stewart  would  be  good 
enough  to  tell  us  v^hj  he  thinks  we  ought  to  restrict  the  move- 
ment of  nursery  stock  and  let  everything  else  go  wide  open,  I  for 
one  would  like  to  know  it,  and  I  believe  there  are  some  others 
who  would  be  interested  in  hearing  it.     (Applause). 

DR.  STEWAET:  I  will  answer  tliat  question  in  this  way: 
That  this  diseased  nursery  stock  may  transmit  the  disease  long 
distances.  In  that  way  the  disease  may  take  long  jumps,  clear 
across  the  continent. 

MR.  WILLIAMS :  I  understand  from  the  Professor's  paper 
that  birds  likewise  take  long  jumps.  What  will  he  do  with  that 
side  of  the  case? 

DR.  STEWART:     We  can  do  nothing  there. 

MR.  A.  THALHEIMER,  of  Reading,  Pa.:  Gentlemen,  I 
rise  to  protect  the  woodpecker.  (Applause).  I  own  probably 
in  small  woodland  patches,  two  hundred  acres  of  chestnut.  Since 
this  blight  question  first  came  up,  I  have  gone  through .  nearly 
all  my  trees  and  I  have  not  found  a  single  tree  that  was  diseased, 
with  the  exception  of  some  near  the  city.  I  have  about  one  hun- 
dred and  twenty  acres  near  the  city,  and  of  course,  the  boys, — 
maybe  some  of  you  have  done  that, — want  to  get  the  chestnuts. 
They  bump  the  trees  and  some  of  them  are  bruised  in  that  way. 
But  my  section  is  full  of  woodpeckers.  They  are  not  immi- 
grants; they  are  stationary  and  they  have  not  destroyed  or  in- 
fected any  trees.  I  think  it  takes  a  long  time  to  get  at  the  bot- 
tom of  it,  and  find  what  really  is  the  cause.  I  desire  to  inform 
you  of  a  subject  in  which  I  took  a  deep  interest, — one  which 
leads  to  this  matter.  During  the  war,  in  traveling  through  Vir- 
ginia or  through  Maryland,  you  all  know  how  scrub  oaks  are 
scattered  over  all  that  country.  A  scrub  oak  is  a  very  small  tree 
and  does  not  bear  any  fruit  at  all.    I  often  wondered  where  they 


Ill 

came  from,  not  having  been  planted  there.  In  going  from  here 
to  Wasliington,  or  going  anywhere,  if  I  knew  of  any  farmer  who 
lived  in  that  neighborhood,  I  would  ask  him  what  he  knew  about 
it,  and  none  of  them  could  tell  me.  I  was  anxious  to  know  and 
see  if  I  could  not  get  that  information.  I  wrote  to  the  Forestry 
Department  at  Washington,  and  could  get  no  definite  informa- 
tion there.  One  time  in  moving  from  one  house  to  a  new  house 
and  in  rearranging  my  library,  I  got  hold  of  a  book.  The  library 
had  belonged  to  a  friend  of  mine,  a  lawyer,  and  I  got  some  of  his 
books  in  remembrance.  I  looked  through  those  books  and  I  found 
a  book  of  birds,  and  among  them  I  found  a  picture  of  a  bird 
called  a  "tree  planter."  It  gave  a  description  how  that  bird 
traveled  from  Maine  to  Florida,  traveled  from  the  north  to  the 
south  and  migrated  again  north,  and  they  had  a  committee, — ■ 
I  do  not  know  whether  it  was  a  Committee  of  Thirteen  or  not, — 
but  they  had  a  committee  which  would  carry  the  nuts  and  plant 
them  for  food  on  both  ways.  Then,  down  South,  they  shoot 
these  tree  planters  and  utilize  them  for  food,  and  I  suppose  there 
are  not  enough  coming  back  to  pick  up  all  the  fruit  which  is 
planted,  and  that  this  is  the  way  it  grows  up  into  scrub  oaks. 
(Applause). 

PKOFESSOR  W.  D.  CLAEK,  Pa.,  State  College:  Ladies  and 
Gentlemen:  I  came  here  to-day  to  this  Conference  because, 
being  a  forester  by  training  and  by  profession,  I  am  vitally  in- 
terested in  any  movement  which  seeks  in  a  practical  way,  to  con- 
trol or  to  eradicate  the  chestnut  blight  disease.  I  fully  appre- 
ciate the  value  and  importance  of  the  chestnut  tree,  both  as  a 
timber  producer,  to  enhance  the  aesthetic  value  of  the  landscape, 
as  a  shade  tree  and  as  a  nut  producer,  and  I  heartily  favor  the 
pursuit  of  scientific  studies  and  experiments  in  order  to  deter- 
mine whether  or  not  there  is  a  practical  way,  Avithin  the  means  of 
human  agencies,  either  to  eradicate  or  control  this  disease.  I 
am,  however,  very  solicitous  lest,  on  account  of  the  obviousness 
of  this  disease,  the  directness  with  which  it  works,  the  quickness 
of  its  results,  and  the  generally  common  knowledge  of  the  dis- 
ease, we  will  become  blind  to  two  other  diseases  of  trees  which, 
on  account  of  their  remoteness,  their  complex  character  and 
their  slow,  insidious  way  of  working,  we  are  apt  to  forget.     I 


112 

refer  to  the  disease  known  as  an  nnjnst  and  nnscientific  manner 
of  taxing  timber  lands,  and  to  the  disease  known  as  forest  fires. 
Here  are  tAvo  diseases  which  threaten  to  destroy  not  only  chest- 
nut trees,  but  all  of  our  forest  trees.  These  diseases  threaten 
not  only  to  destroy  our  standing  trees  but  to  prevent,  or  make 
useless,  the  i^lanting  and  growth  of  any  forest  trees.  These 
diseases  are  ^ot  well-known  diseases  which  are%eyond  our  con- 
trol. They  are  entirely  within  the  control  of  human  agents,  and 
I  would  be  grateful  if  I  could  impress  upon  the  mind  of  every 
member  in  attendance  upon  this  Convention  that  if  we  could 
onlj^  control  the  forest  fires  and  bring  about  a  just,  scientific, 
and  uniform  system  of  taxing  forest  land,  and  then  go  ahead  and^ 
plant  trees,  trees  immune  from  this  dreaded  disease,  pine  trees, 
oak  trees,  hickory  trees,  poplar  trees,  valuable  timber  trees,  we 
would  have  so  many  timber  trees  flourishing  in  the  State  of 
Pennsylvania  that  it  really  would  not  matter  a  very  great  deal  if 
we  had  no  more  chestnut  trees.  We  could  possibly  get  along 
without  them.     (Applause). 

ME.  F.  B.  JEWETT,  of  Susquehanna  county.  Pa. :  Mr.  Chair- 
man and  Gentlemen :  I  came  to  the  City  of  Harrisburg  to-day 
not  particularly  to  attend  this  Convention;  but,  when  I  arrived 
here  and  the  jDrogramme  was  thrust  before  me,  every  other  item  of 
my  business  stopped,  and  I  have  attended  your  meetings  and 
have  been  very  much  interested. 

The  first  dollar  that  I  ever  remember  of  having  in  my  life  was 
derived  from  the  chestnut  tree,  half  a  century  ago,  when,  as  a 
little  boy,  I  picked  up  the  chestnuts.  I  have  been  very  much  in- 
terested in  every  phase  of  the  discussion,  because,  like  the  gentle- 
man over  here,  I  have  several  acres  that  have  chestnut  trees  on 
them.  In  this  evening's  lecture  there  was  thrown  on  the  canvas 
a  view  of  the  harvest  of  that  chestnut  orchard  in  Irish  Valley, 
near  Shamokin,  and  in  the  picture  I  noticed  the  green  burrs 
Avere  harvested.  The  question  that  I  wish  to  ask,  if  Professor 
Davis  is  present,  is,  how  tliey  could  get  tliose  green  burrs  off 
from  the  trees  without  injuring  them?  All  those  that  have 
knowledge  from  experience  know  that  it  is  almost  impossible  to 
get  a  green  burr  from  its  native  branch  until  the  frost  comes 
and  kills  the  connection  between  the  burr  and  the  branch.     I 


113 

remember  distinctly  a  few  years  ago,  j)erliaps  fifteen,  I  made 
my  first  sliipmeut  of  chestnuts  to  New  York.  I  sent  tliem  to  a 
commission  mercliant  and  I  was  surprised,  altliougli  I  knew  tliat 
it  was  early,  to  receive  back  in  two  days'  time  returns  of  twenty- 
four  dollars  per  bushel  for  that  shipment  of  chestnuts,  with  this 
advice:  ''Ship  chestnuts  as  fast  as  possible.  Your  shij)ment 
was  the  first  that  came  into  the  City  of  New  York  this  fall." 
I  tried  to  get  another  shipment,  but  I  could  not  get  those  burrs 
open,  and  the  last  shipment  I  made  to  New  York  that  same  fall 
brought  me  only  |2.50  per  bushel.  I  agree  with  the  gentlemen 
that  have  read  these  very  interesting  papers,  so  very  interesting 
to  us,  indeed;  but  so  far  as  the  spread  of  this  disease  is  con- 
cerned, I  am  on  the  side  of  the  woodpecker,  because  the  wood- 
jjecker  has  been  m}^  friend  from  my  boyhood  up,  and  I  have 
learned  to  love  the  music  of  his  beak.  But  let  me  tell  you,  gentle- 
men, a  few  years  ago  I  was  out  in  Kansas,  and  on  that  wild 
prairie,  a  heavily  loaded  team  had  passed  over  in  the  spring.  It 
was  September  when  I  was  there,  and  across  that  unbroken 
prairie  were  two  distinct  tracks  and  sometimes,  when  the  for- 
ward wheel  had  not  run  exactly  straight,  there  were  four  tracks ; 
and  in  every  one  of  those  tracks  was  a  thrifty  growth  of  sun- 
flowers. Can  you  tell  me  how  those  sunflowers  came  there?  If 
you  will  tell  me  that,  I  will  tell  you  what  spreads  the  fungus  on 
your  trees.  It  is  nature.  You  know  we  all  of  us  love  up-to-date 
stories ;  we  do  not  care  about  the  old  "chestnuts"  so  much.  But 
in  this  case  the  chestnut  is  very  important  and,  in  closing,  I 
want  to  speak  a  word  of  commendation  for  Mr.  Williams  and  for 
the  men  who  so  wisely  voted  the  appropriation  of  two  hundred 
and  seventy-five  thousand  dollars  to  tliis  work.  I  appreciate  it. 
Ever  since  I  have  been  a  boy,  it  has  been  grumble,  grumble, 
grumble  about  appropriations  and  graft,  and  so  on.  New  York 
State  can  sympathize  witli  us  somewliat  in  tlie  matter  of  Capi- 
tol gi-aft.  You  remember  you  got  tlii'oiigh  with  it  in  Albany.  We 
got  tlirough  witli  it  without  as  many  years  of  experience  ns  you 
did,  but  I  remember  v<^i"y  well,  after  the  old  Capitol  burned  here, 
that  five  hundred  nud  fifty  thousand  dollars  was  ai)propriated. 
Why,  that  was  a  big  sum;  Imt  you  know  how  that  "chestnut" 
grew,  and  we  got  out  of  it  with  thirteen  millions.     T  am  very 


114 

thankful  tliat  the  "chestnut"'  of  the  old  approi)riation  is  improv- 
ing; that  we  have  the  two  hundred  and  seventy-five  thousand 
dollars  approi^riated,  and  that  we  are  getting  out  of  it  with 
about  twenty  thousand  dollars  as  far  as  it  goes  now.  So  I  think 
that  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  has  done  finely  in  taking  the 
initiative  in  this  work.  I  pay  tax  on  timber,  and  I  want  to  pay 
tax  on  timber-land.  It  is  fair  and  square  that  we  should  -pay  it, 
and  let  the  gentleman  that  complains  of  it  remember  that  none 
of  that  tax  goes  into  the  State  Treasury. 

THE  CHAIEMAN :  We  wish  to  hear  Professor  Clark's  reply 
to  the  question,  but  there  are  a  number  of  others  who  are  pre- 
pared to  make  remarks.  The  Chair  would  ask  if  you  have  any 
instructions  which  you  would  give  to  govern  our  discussion 
from  now  on.  Do  you  wish  to  limit  the  length  of  the  remarks? 
I  will  entertain  a  motion,  if  it  is  your  desire. 

MR.  E.  A.  WEIMER,  of  Lebanon,  Pa.:  Mr.  Chairman:  I 
would  suggest  that  we  limit  our  remarks  to  the  chestnut  blight. 
I  would  also  suggest  that  the  speakers  be  very  careful  not  to 
bring  out  facts  without  careful  consideration.  The  man  on  my 
left  here  talked  about  the  spores  being  sticky.  He  did  not  con- 
sider that  the  spores  were  sticky  only  during  a  certain  portion 
of  their  lives.  Another  man  on  my  right  talked  about  the  wood- 
pecker, but  he  did  not  consider  the  fact  that  the  woodpecker  does 
not  pull  out  the  grub  with  his  feet,  and  that  is  about  the  only 
place  he  could  get  the  spores  on.  We  want  to  be  very  careful 
when  we  are  going  to  get  at  any  facts,  not  to  hunt  up  facts  to 
base  our  arguments  on,  but  to  base  our  argumertts  on  facts.  I 
suggest  in  the  future  that  we  deal  only  with  questions  dealing 
with  chestnut  blight,  and  accept  Mr.  Sober's  invitation  to  visit  his 
orchard  when  the  chestnuts  are  ripe. 

DR.  MICKLEBOROUGH,  of  New  York  State:  Mr.  Chair- 
man, just  a  word  with  reference  to  the  spread  of  the  disease  by 
the  spores :  During  the  summer  the  conidial  spores,  those  thread 
spores  which  have  been  explained  to  us  to-day,  are  produced 
in  myriads  upon  the  diseased  tree.  The  water,  the  rain  will 
readily  dissolve  those  little  sticky,  pasty  threads  and,  when  they 
are  dissolved,  it  takes  about  eight  or  nine  thousand,  put  end  to 


115 

end,  to  measure  an  inch,  TJiey  are  exceedingly  small  micro- 
scopic objects  and  they  are  readily  carried  by  the  wind,  and  not 
very  much  by  the  woodpecker.  That  is  my  judgement  of  the  case. 
The  wind  will  carry  those  very  readily,  and  sometimes  to  a 
considerable  distance.  I  think  we  can  account  for  the  spread  of 
the  disease,  the  carrying  of  the  spores,  by  the  wind.  Railroads 
are  sinners  to  a  certain  extent  in  this  matter.  The  trains,  as  they 
sweep  through  the  country,  will  create  a  great  deal  of  draft, 
and  you  will  notice  along  certain  main  lines  that  the  disease  has 
spread  Avith  a  great  deal  of  certainty  and  rapidity.  Now  these 
spores,  when  they  are  lodged  upon  a  chestnut  tree,  are  washed 
down  by  tlie  rain,  by  tlie  water,  by  the  dews,  and  you  are  very 
apt  to  find  the  disease  attacking  the  tree  in  the  fork  of  the  limb. 
You  will  find  it  there  perhaps  more  frequently  than  any  other 
place,  and  there  is  a  good  place  for  the  entrance  of  the  spore. 

Now,  to  digress  from  that  for  one  moment,  I  think,  Sir,  that 
Pennsylvania  has  done  a  magnanimous  and  great  thing,  and  I  was 
very  glad  to  hear  from  Deputy  Commissioner  Williams.  We  were 
told  by  the  Governor  that  the  value  of  the  chestnut  stand  in 
this  State,  I  think,  was  forty  millions  dollars.  The  Legislature 
of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  did  not  appropriate  one  per  cent, 
of  that  which  is  endangered  by  this  chestnut  blight.  In  fact,  the 
Governor  told  us  the  estimate  was  based  upon  fifty  cents  per 
tree.  Indeed,  if  the  statistics  were  carefully  made,  Pennsylvania 
has  not  appropriated  more  than  about  one-half  of  one  per  cent, 
to  protect  the  value  of  a  great  chestnut  growth.     (Applause). 

DR.  GIDDINGS,  of  West  Virginia :  Mr.  Chairman :  I  would 
like  to  raise  some  questions  in  connection  with  Dr.  Clinton's 
statement.  I  infer  two  things  from  it :  One  is  that  the  control  of 
the  gypsy  moth  in  Massachusetts  was  not  a  valuable  expendi- 
ture of  money;  another  was  that,  by  leaving  off  the  control  of 
the  peach  yellows  in  Connecticut,  it  was  to  tlie  advantage  of 
that  State.  I  would  like  to  ask  if  those  inferences  are  correct 
and  if  Professor  Clinton  has  data  to  sliow  that  the  dropping  of 
the  peach  yellows  inspection  lias  been  to  the  advantage  of  Con- 
necticut. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Professor  Clinton,  can  you  answer  those 
questions  in  a  word  or  two? 


110 

PROFESSOR  CLINTON :  I  do  not  know  that  I  made  the 
statement  that  gyps}^  moth  work  in  Massachansetts  was  not 
effective.  I  said  it  meant  a  long  fight  and  a  continuous  fight. 
This  chestnut  blight,  from  the  re-infection,  would  make'  the  fight 
a  continuous  one.  You  could  not  do  it  up  and  leave  it  there. 
You  would  have  to  keep  at  it  forever,  i^rovided  the  material  con- 
tinued. Regarding  the  peach  yellows  law,  my  statement  was 
that  they  dropped  that.  The  reason  it  was  dropped  was  because 
it  made  so  much  trouble  with  the  farmers,  by  going  into  their 
orchards.  You  would  find  that  same  difficulty  with  the  farmers 
in  Pennsylvania  that  you  would  in  Connecticut. 

DR.  MERKEL,  of  N.  Y. :  Mr.  Chairman:  I  have  been  on 
my  feet  continuously  ever  since  Mr.  Williams  spoke,  and  was 
about  to  give  it  up.  Some  of  the  i^oints  I  wanted  to  bring  out 
have  already  been  brought  out.  However,  I  want  to  thank  Mr. 
Williams.  I  want  to  thank  the  great  State  of  Pennsylvania  for 
passing  that  law.  Pennsylvania  has  sliown  all  the  other  States 
in  the  Union  what  it  is  t )  pass  an  unselfish  law.  If  we  could 
only  have  a  Federal  law  tliat  would  be  as  broad  as  the  law  of 
Pennsylvania  ought  to  be  and  could  easily  be  made,  by  simply  in- 
serting the  words  after  "the  chestnut  tree  blight,"  "and  any  other 
fungous  or  insect  pest,"  we  would  have  no  trouble  with  our  fun- 
gous or  insect  pests  after  a  certain  length  of  time.  Sometime  ago 
I  wrote  that  only  when  we  considered  a  tree  that  is  dangerously 
infected  with  an  insect  or  fungous  pest  as  dangerous  as  a  person 
infected  with  smallpox  or  as  a  rabid  dog,  will  we  get  rid  in  our 
forests  of  insect  and  fungous  pests.  I  was  very  glad  to  hear  that 
Mr.  Williams  and  the  members  of  the  Commission  have  not  be- 
come discouraged  by  the  large  amount  of  cold  water  that  has  been 
thrown  on  their  X3lans.  I  am  sure  that  the  two  hundred  and 
seventy-five  tliousand  dollars  that  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  has 
appropriated  will  never  be  missed,  even  if  no  beneficial  results 
are  obtained;  but  that  the  everlasting  shame  that  the  State  of 
Pennsylvania  would  suffer  if  she  made  no  attempt  to  save  her 
chestnut  trees,  should  be  enough  not  to  discourage  any  and  all 
citizens  from  unselfish  effort  for  their  fellow  men. 

GEORGE  G.  ATWOOD,  of  New  York:  Mr.  Chairman: 
There  is  a  little  desk  in  Albany  that  has  been  open  for  about  a 


117 

year,  and  in  that  desk  is  about  everything  that  has  been  said, 
or  thonglit,  or  dreamed  of,  relative  to  the  chestnut  bark  disease. 
We  liave  had  the  advice  of  our  friend  Stewart,  who  thinks  as 
Dr.  Clinton  does,  along  the  same  lines.  What  they  have  stated 
here  to-day  we  must  accept  as  the  honest  statement  of  men  who 
know  enough  to  make  such  statements.  They  know  what  they 
are  talking  about,  because  they  have  investigated  this  disease  and 
they  have  investigated  similar  diseases,  so  that  we  must  take 
what  they  say  with  a  great  deal  of  confidence.  They  have  been 
talking  to  the  point  whether  chestnut  bark  disease  could  be  con- 
trolled or  eradicated.  If  I  were  to  ask  either  one  of  those  gentle- 
men what  they  would  do  with  a  chestnut  tree  in  their  own  yard 
that  was  infected  with  this  disease,  they  would  probably  say, 
"Cut  it  out."  That  gives  us  the  keynote  of  what  I  think  should 
be  done  wherever  there  is  a  possibility  that  single  trees,  or  small 
infections,  can  be  removed.  That  seems  to  be  the  simple  thing, 
and  the  proper,  sensible  thing  to  do.  It  Tanj  have  to  be  done  by 
the  force  of  statute,  but  a  great  deal  can  be  done  by  advising 
owners  of  chestnut  trees  that  become  slightly  infected,  asking, 
urging,  forcing  them  i]i  every  way  you  can,  to  cut  that  timber 
while  it  is  still  alive  and  save  it.  If  that  were  done  in  the  State 
of  Pennsylvania,  their  entire  two  hundred  and  seventy-five  thou- 
sand dollars  would  be  well  expended.  We  are  up  against  a 
proposition  in  New  York,  We  have  probably  two-thirds  of  our 
chestnut  timber  still  intact,  and  we  want  to  save  it  if  we  can. 
Now  why  should  we  not  go  out  in  the  borders  and  carry  on  a 
missionary  work,  or  something  stronger,  and  see  if  we  cannot 
cut  a  dividing  line?  Let  scientific  men  go  on  witli  their  investi- 
gations. We  need  all  the  advice  that  their  broad  knowledge  can 
bring  to  us;  but  the  other  thing  is  a  practical  thing,  a  thing  that 
is  at  our  doors,  and  a  few  liundred  thousand  dollars  spent  now 
may  result  in  a  saving  of  that  valuable  property  lying  all  to  the 
west  and  south  of  us.     (Applause). 

DR.  J.  EUSSELL  SMITIJ,  of  rennsylvania:  Mr.  Cliairman: 
Professor  Clinton  advanced  a  very  interesting  point;  that  it 
was  the  dry  weather  that  made  these  trees  amenal)le  to  blight. 
The  evidence  was  that  people  in  C(mnecticnt  tliought  the  dry 
weather  had  killed  other  trees  that  died,   if   I  remember  tlie 


118 

geiiilemaii  correctly.  It  seems  to  me  that  that  matter  of  the 
drought  would  be  much  better  tested  by  showing  that,  in  locali- 
ties of  low,  moist,  abundantly  watered  soils,  the  trees  had  not 
had  blight.  There  must  be  many  such  localities  of  chestnut  in 
Connecticut  where  even  the  recent  droughts  of  past  years  have 
not  subjected  many  trees  to  a  dearth  of  water. 

THE  CHAIKMAN:  Can  you  answer  that  in  a  Avord,  Pro- 
fessor Clinton? 

PROFESSOR  CLINTON:  I  was  giving  the  various  things 
that  weaken  trees.  Drought  is  one  of  them.  We  have  had  severe 
droughts  in  Connecticut,  and  I  hold  that  the  situations  that 
have  been  the  most  moist  have  been  the  regions  that  have  suffered 
most  from  the  drought,  because  Avhen  a  tree  is  trained  to  live  in 
a  moist  place,  during  a  drought  it  will  suffer  more  than  a  tree 
on  higher  land  Avhich  has  been  used  to  dry  soil. 

MR.  CRANMER,  of  Pennsylvania:  Mr.  Chairman:  While 
still  well  on  the  sunny  side  of  life's  meridian,  I  distinctly  re- 
member, as  a  barefoot  boy  on  a  little  farm  on  the  eastern  sea- 
board of  New  Jersey,  the  advent  of  what  was  known  then  as 
the  Colorado  beetle,  commonly  called  the  potato  bug.  As  a  little 
boy  about  this  high  (indicating)  I  was  put  in  between  the  rows 
to  catch  those  fellows  and  get  them  off  the  vines.  Naturally 
they  appeared  on  the  vines  of  other  farmers  in  that  section,  and 
many  of  the  old  fellows  shook  their  heads  in  despair.  They 
"said  "We  will  never  raise  any  more  potatoes.  The  potato  crops 
are  done  in  America."  My  father  did  not  feel  that  way,  although 
I  would  have  been  pretty  w^ell  satisfied  if  he  had.  He  made  me 
hunt  potato  bugs,  and  then  we  later  began  to  use  the  London 
purple  and  the  Paris  green,  and  so  forth.  We  are  still  raising 
potatoes  in  New  Jersey  and  other  places  throughout  the  United 
States,  with  success.  We  still  have  specimens  of  the  Colorado 
beetle  in  the  United  States,  but  we  expect  to  go  on  raising  pota- 
toes, and  doing  our  best.  So  it  seems  to  me,  gentlemen,  in  rela- 
tion to  this  chestnut  bark  blight,  this  chestnut  tree  disease,  we 
are  not  to  hold  up  our  hands  in  despair  and  listen  to  too  much 
of  the  expert  advice  and  opinion  that  falls  from  the  lips  of  our 
university  men.  I  come  from  a  university  myself,  and  I  dare 
sav  that.    We  have  heard  much  to-day.    There  have  been  numer- 


119 

ous  expressions  of  opinions  and  of  guesswork.  We  liave  yet 
to  hear  from  any  person  who  tells  us  what  he  has  done  in  a 
practical  way  for  the  cutting  out  and  eradication  of  this  dis- 
ease in  any  extended  form  and  over  any  very  large  tracts  of  land. 
I  am  unfortunate  in  the  fact  that  my  chief,  who  is  custodian  of 
all  the  property  at  Lehigh  University,  is  not  able  to  be  here  to- 
night, Dr.  Henry  S.  Drinker,  whose  name  appears  in  the  roster 
of  officials  of  the  American  Forestry  Association,  and  who  is 
president  of  Lehigh  LTniversity.  He  is  custodian  of  a  large  tract 
of  land,  adorned  on  its  campus  with  many  primeval  chestnut 
monarclis  from  eighteen  inches  to  three  feet  in  diameter,  giants 
of  the  old  forest  tract.  In  the  rear  of  this  campus  we  have 
some  two  hundred  acres  covered  with  a  coppice  growth  of  chest- 
nut and  various  hardwoods  of  Pennsylvania.  We  were  exceed- 
ingly fortunate,  some  years  ago,  in  having  heard  from  the  lips 
of  Mr.  C.  W.  Levitt,  an  eminent  landscape  engineer  of  New  York 
City,  the  warning  that  our  chestnut  trees  were  likely  to  be  visited 
witli  an  insidious  enemy,  Avhich  would  destroy  them  all.  It  was 
not,  however,  until  the  summer  of  1908  that  I  as  custodian  of 
those  grounds,  saw  any  unusual  discoloration  on  either  the 
bark  or  foliage  of  a  chestnut  tree,  except  that  which  seemed  to 
be  natural  in  the  decay  of  any  specimen  of  deciduous  trees.  Dur- 
ing that  summer  I  saw,  on  a  small  chestnut,  this  unusual  dis- 
coloration and  the  appearance  of  small  red  or  brown  pustules. 
This  tree  was  immediately  cut  down  and  portions  sent,  after  all 
other  portions  were  burned,  to  Mr.  I.  C.  Williams,  Deputy  State 
Commissioner  of  Forestry  of  Pennsylvania,  who  placed  it  in 
incubation  and  pronounced  it  the  chestnut  bark  blight,  or  dis- 
ease. I  am  not  familiar  Avith  the  scientific  name.  I  was  then 
cautioned  by  the  president  to  be  careful,  observant,  and  vigilant, 
and  to  watch  for  any  recurrence  of  this  thing.  To  hasten  from 
that  time  on,  through  the  summer  of  1910,  when  it  appeared, 
and  in  1911,  we  have  done  exactly  as  was  recommended  to  us 
by  Mr.  Williams  and  by  Dr.  Kothrock,  wlio  visited  us  during 
this  period  of  time  and  walked  through  our  coppice  grove  of 
chestnut.  I  am  7iot  able  to  say,  after  extended  experience  along 
this  line,  tliat  all  trees  which  are  treated  by  severe  pruning, 
which  have  been  touched  by  this  blight,  may  l)e  saved.  We  do 
know,  however,  that  we  have  tided  trees  over  one  year  and  two 


12U 

years,  tliat  Avere  striken  witli  tlie  bliglit,  by  removing  all  sucli 
portions  as  "were  affected  by  it,  treating  tliem  with  a  composi- 
tion of  coal  tar,  diluted  slightly  with  spirits  of  turpentine,  so 
that  it  might  be  easily  aj^plied  with  a  brush,  using  it  both  as 
a  fungicide  and  insecticide;  using  it  on  bark,  wood,  and  broken 
places.  Thus  far  we  feel  that  our  work  has  been  successful 
along  this  line.  Last  year  it  is  true  we  cut  out  forty  trees,  all 
of  them  less  than  ten  inches  in  diameter.  We  have  as  yet  lost 
but  three  trees  in  all  this  large  tract  of  land  that  were  more 
tlian  this  size.  We  have,  as  I  said  before,  saved  many  trees  by 
severe  pruning  and  trimming,  cutting  out  all  diseased  places  and 
treating  them  with  this  solution  of  coal  tar,  ordinary  coal  gas 
tar ;  so  that  we  feel  it  is  worth  while  to  do  something  along  this 
line.  We  do  not  feel  like  the  dear  old  lady  who  stood  up  on 
the  banks  of  the  Hudson  River  when  Mr.  Fulton  was  about  to 
experiment  with  his  steamboat,  and  said,  as  it  was  puffing  and 
blowing,  "It  will  never  move,  it  will  never  move,"  and  when  the 
ropes  were  cast  off  and  the  boat  moved  out  into  the  stream, 
she  said  "It  will  never  stop,  it  will  never  stop."  We  hope  this 
will  be  a  successful  work,  prosecuted  for  the  highest  end  by 
this  worthy  and  able  Commission  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania, 
and  we,  as  representatives  of  Lehigh  University,  Dr.  Drinker, 
Professor  Hall,  of  the  Department  of  Biology,  and  myself  as 
custodian  of  the  grounds,  stand  ready  to  help  you  with  anything 
we  can  do  for  you.  We  stand  ready  to  listen  to  what  you  say  to 
us,  stand  ready  to  take  your  advice  as  a  Commission,  and  go 
with  you  hand  in  hand  along  this  line.     (Applause). 

DR.  H.  S.  REED,  of  Virginia:  Mr.  Chairman:  Regarding 
one  of  Dr.  Smith's  questions,  we  have  a  few  observations  upon 
the  chestnuts  in  Virginia.  Reference  has  been  made  this  after- 
noon to  the  blight  in  Virginia.  It  has  been  found  there  in  some 
instances, — probably  there  is  more  there  than  we  think, — 
but  we  have  observed  this  that  wherever  it  has  been  found,  that 
it  was  at  an  altitude  of  less  than  800  feet.  Most  of  the  chestnut 
timber  that  is  healthy,  and  the  greatest  majority  of  it,  is  at  an 
altitude  of  more  than  a  thousand  feet,  and  on  none  of  that  which 
is  more  than  a  thousand  feet  above  the  sea  level  has  any  trace 
of  the  blight  been  found;  but  it  is  found  occurring  at  altitudes 
less  than  800  feet  and  in  regions  where  the  rainfall  is  great. 


121 

THE  CHAIRMAN :  Oii  account  of  the  particularly  interest- 
ing address  that  ^'e  heard  from  Professor  Davis  to-night,  the 
Chair  thought  that  there  would  be  some  questions  directed  to 
him,  but  it  seems  that  the  discussion  has  gone  along  on  somewhat 
different  lines.  There  is  one  question  however,  which  Professor 
Davis  has  not  answered,  with  reference  to  gathering  the  crop 
while  it  is  still  green,  if  I  remember  the  question.  Will  Pro- 
fessor Davis  kindly  answer  that  question? 

PEOFESSOII  DAVIS:  In  September,  when  the  burrs  are 
green,  j^ou  can  shake Jhem  from  the  trees  as  you  can  apples, 
and  the  entire  crop  has  been  harvested  Avitliout  frost.  When 
they  are  shaken  off,  they  are  allowed  to  dry  a  little  while.  When 
you  shake  them  off  in  September  they  color  up  brown  and  the 
frost,  I  think,  has  nothing  to  do  with  it. 

THE  CHxilRMAN:  This  note  has  been  sent  to  the  Chair: 
•^'Will  you  please  ask  Dr.  Sj)alding,  of  the  United  States  Bureau 
of  Plant  Industry,  what  has  been  done  in  the  vicinity  of  Wash- 
ington, D.  C,  to  prevent  the  spread  of  the  chestnut  bark  dis- 
ease?" Of  course,  it  will  be  impossible  now  to  go  into  that  sub- 
ject at  length,  but  if  Dr.  Spaulding  will  tell  us,  in  a  minute  or 
two,  something  of  what  has  been  accomf>lished,  and  in  a  word, 
the  main  features  of  the  method,  I  feel  sure  it  will  be  appre- 
ciated. 

DR.  SPAULDING  :  I  am  not  very  familiar  with  the  work  that 
has  been  done  in  the  vicinity,  because  I  have  been  working  on 
other  problems  most  of  the  time  during  the  last  few  years.  I 
simply  know,  in  a  rough  way,  that  the  method  of  cutting  out 
had  been  practiced  wherever  diseased  trees  have  been  found  and, 
as  far  as  I  know,  that  has  been  fairly  successful.  There  are  cases 
where  spores  have  been  found  on  the  stum^D  of  an  old  tree.  In 
many  cases,  I  am  sure  from  Dr.  Metcalf's  stiitement,  no  special 
precautions  were  taken  to  remove  tlie  diseased  chips,  or  even  to 
remove  the  bark  from  the  stump,  so  that  certain  cases  might  very 
well  be  expected  to  have  the  fungus  at  this  time. 

THE  CHAIRMAN :  It  seems  now,  the  time  being  half  past 
ten,  that  we  had  best  do  one  of  two  things:  either  take  a  recess 
until  to-morrow  moruiiig  at  sharp  nine  o'clock,  or  decide  to  spend 


123 

the  rest  of  the  night  here  and  finish  this  subject  The  Chair 
learns  that  Mr.  H.  P.  Marshall  is  not  here  and  therefore  cannot 
serve  on  the  Committee  on  Kesokitions  for  New  York.  He  will 
ask  Mr.  Merkel  to  take  his  place.  This  Committee  will  meet  at 
the  right  of  the  Chair  immediately  after  adjournment,  only  for 
a  minute  or  two. 

MR.  THALHEIMER,  of  Reading,  Pa.:  Mr.  Chairman:  I 
was  listening  to  the  gentleman  from  New  York.  I  think  he  has 
the  projDer  theory,  that  is,  that  the  spores  are  si^read  by  the 
wind  blowing  them  from  place  to  place,  and  just  according  to 
how  the  wind  blows  at  a  certain  time.  Take  the  Orlansa  tree. 
It  is  called  Orlansa  in  Latin,  Lancewood  in  English  and  Para- 
dise tree  in  German.  It  is  a  tree  like  a  sumac.  There  is  prob- 
ably one  out  of  fifty  that  has  a  seed  on  it,  like  grapes,  and  at 
certain  times  of  the  winds  they  are  blown  for  thousands  of  feet. 
Some  may  land  between  the  mortar,  or  between  the  bricks,  of 
a  building,  and  a  tree  will  grow  there.  If  you  go  up  Third  street 
from  the  ferry  after  you  land  there,  you  will  see  here  and  there 
and  everywhere  in  the  front  yards  a  nice  little  tree  growing 
there,  if  tliey  have  let  it  grow.  You  have  all  seen  that,  especially 
in  Washington.  That  seed  is  just  like  a  leaf,  and  it  is  as  sharj) 
as  a  knife,  and  the  seed  is  encased  in  that  leaf  and  that  gets  into 
any  crevice.  I  have  had -some  taken  out  of  my  wall  that  grew 
there,  and  they  would  grow  to  a  good  size.  I  have  seen  them 
grow  out  of  a  brick  pavement,  where  there  was  not  any  sweep- 
ing or  any  work  done  around. 

THE  CHAIRMAN :  As  President  Drinker  cannot  serve  on 
the  Committee  on  Resolutions,  Mr.  Green  is  asked  to  serve  in 
his  place. 

We  will  now  take  a  recess  until  nine  o'clock  to-morrow  morn- 
ing to  meet  again  in  this  room. 

(Adjourned  until  Wednesday,  February  21,  1912,  at  9  o'clock 
A.  M.) 


MOENING  SESSION. 


Wednesday,  February  21,  1912,  9  o'clock  A.  M. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  meeting  will  please  be  in  order. 
We  have  a  busy  session  before  ns  and  in  a  few  moments  oppor- 
tunity will  be  given  for  the  presentation  of  such  business  as 
ought  to  come  up,  and  then  we  will  proceed  with  our  progTamme. 
It  has  been  suggested  to  the  Chairman,  and  he  very  heartily  ap- 
proves of  the  suggestion,  that  we  should  start  our  morning  ses- 
sion with  a  good  taste  in  our  mouths,  which  would  be  j)rovided 
by  hearing  a  few  remarks  from  our  old  friend.  Dr.  J.  T.  Roth- 
rock,  who  is  recognized  as  the  father  of  Pennsylvania  forestry 
conservation,  and,  if  there  is  no  objection,  the  Chair  will  change 
from  the  established  order  to  call  upon  Dr.  Rothrock  for  a  few 
remarks  at  this  time.     (Applause). 

DR.  JOSEPH  T.  ROTHROCK:  Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentle- 
men :  This  question  of  chestnut  blight,  although  of  course  it  is 
a  portion  of  the  forestry  work  of  the  State,  is  somewhat  foreign 
to  the  line  in  which  I  have  been  most  actively  interested.  I 
would  say,  though,  that  it  was  my  good  fortune  in  1880  to  spend 
nine  months  in  the  laboratory  of  Professor  DeBarry  at  Strass- 
burg,  Germany.  DeBarry  at  that  time  was  recognized  as  the 
leading  fungologist  of  the  world.  I  departed  from  the  faith  that 
was  in  me  then,  not  because  of  lack  of  interest  in  the  field,  but 
because  my  eyesight  gave  out,  and  I  drifted  then  into  forestry. 
So  that  you  will  see  that  I  am  not  wholly  without  a  knowledge 
of  the  rudiments  of  this  work  that  you  are  engaged  in. 

Now  when  a  contagious  disease  breaks  out  among  men  or 
among  domestic  animals,  the  first  thing  that  is  done  is  to  limit, 
as  far  as  possible,  the  spread  of  the  infection,  or  of  the  contagion. 
Meanwhile,  the  laboratories  of  the  land  are  doing  all  they  can 
to  find  out  the  causes  and  what  is  to  be  done  to  end  the  trouble. 
The  two  lines  of  work  are  progressing  side  by  side.  AVhen  the 
Peronospora  invaded  the  vine-growing  disti'icts  of  France  and 
Germany,  the  laboratories  of  the  Old  Woi'ld  were  busily  en- 


124 

gaged  in  finding  ont  \\o^\  the  fnngns  that  produced  the  trouble 
in  the  wine-growing  districts  found  its  access  into  the  vines.  I 
had  the  pleasure  of  having  Professor  DeBarry  iDoint  out  to  me 
himself  the  first  spore  that  I  ever  saw,  sending  its  germ  threads 
down  into  the  tissue  of  the  plant.  I  do  not  know  who  discovered 
the  Bordeaux  mixture,  but  I  do  kno^^'  tliat  that  was  very  in- 
fluential in  limiting  the  spread  of  the  disease  and  restoring  the 
wine  industry  to  its  normal  and  natural  condition.  I  do  not  be- 
lieve, however,  that  it  was  discovered  by  our  scientific  friends; 
but  they  did  discover  tlie  life  history  of  tlie  disease,  which  Avas 
a  most  important,  permanent  contribution  to  the  vine-growing, 
wine-producing  industry  of  tlie  Old  World.  Now  it  seems  to 
me  that  we  are  in  a  sollle^^i^at  simihir  condition  here.  We  have 
with  us  a  pest,  which  is  destroying  our  forests.  It  seems  to 
me  that  the  proper  thing  to  do  is  to  destroy  every  spore-produc- 
ing specimen  that  we  know  is  actively  engaged  in  disseminating 
and  widening  the  area  of  the  disease.  That  v/ould  seem  to  be 
one  commonsense  remedy  to  adoi)t.  It  is  along  the  line  of  what 
we  know  in  the  treatment  of  contagious  and  infectious  diseases. 
In  the  meanwhile,  let  our  laboratory  men  go  on  with  renewed 
energy  and  keep  up  the  work.  I  think  that  every  State  in  this 
Union  ought  to  have  a  laborator^y  of  well  equx3iped  scientific 
men,  men  who  follow  their  work  not  for  their  salary  but  for 
the  love  of  the  work.  Tiiose  are  the  men  that  give  you  the  perma- 
nent results.  I  would  like  to  see  every  State  in  this  Union 
have  a  laboratory  well  equipped  and  well  provided  with  all  that 
is  necessary  to  produce  effective  work.  Mark  Twain  on  one 
occasion  made  the  remark  that  they  had  a  queer  way  of  dealing 
with  criminals  out  West.-  He  said  "They  hang  them  first  and 
try  them  afterwards."  Now  it  seems  to  me  that  we  have  the 
knoAvn  criminal  with  us  here.  Let  us  hang  him  first  and  then 
let  our  laboratory  friends  try  him  in  the  meanwhile.  (Applause 
and  laughter). 

MR.  HAEOLD  PEIRCE,  of  Pennsylvania:  Mr.  Chairman: 
I  move  that  at  11.30  A.  M.,  the  Conference  take  a  recess  until 
two  o'clock,  and  at  that  time,  11.30  A.  M.,  the  Committee  on 
Resolutions  meet  in  the  House  Caucus  room.  I  would  also 
move  that  no  resolutions  be  received  after  10.30,  and  that  up 


to  tbat  time-,  all  resolutions  that  are  desired  to  be  brought  to 
the  Committee  on  Eesolutions  be  sent  to  the  desk,  to  be  presented 
to  the  Kesohitions'  Committee. 

Seconded  by  Dr.  Eussell  Smith,  of  Pennsylvania. 

THE  CHAIKMx4N :  The  motion  is  that  we  adjourn  this  meet- 
ing at  11.30,  to  reconvene  at  2  o'clock,  and  that  at  11.30,  the 
Resolutions'  Committee  meet  in  the  House  Caucus  room,  which 
is  below  this  room,  on  the  main  floor,  and  that  no  resolutions  be 
received  after  10.30  this  morning,  and  that  all  resolutions  should 
be  presented  at  the  desk  during  the  next  sixty  minutes.  You 
have  heard  the  motion,  which  has  been  seconded.  Are  there 
any  remarks?    If  there  are  no  remarks,  we  will  call  for  a  vote. 

The  motion  was  put  and  unanimously  carried. 

MR.  PEIRCE :  I  have  a  letter  that  has  been  sent  me,  that 
I  think  it  would  be  well  to  have  read. 

THE  CHAIRMAN :    Let  the  Secretary  read  the  letter. 
Secretary  Besle}^  read  the  following  letter,  written  upon  letter 
head  of  the  Harrisburg  Board  of  Trade: 

"Dear  Mr.  Peirce: 

It  occurs  to  me  to  suggest  that  it  might  be  well  to  have  Mr. 
Pearson  call  the  attention  of  the  chestnut  tree  bark  disease  con- 
ference to  several  things  relating  to  the  stay  of  the  delegates 
in  Harrisburg. 

1.  The  Capitol  Building,  itself  easily  one  of  the  ten  great 
buildings  of  the  world,  with  its  appropriate  and  memorable  art 
decorations,  is  an  exhibit  worth  looking  at.  There  are  courteous 
guides  at  hand  to  explain  to  visitors  its  features. 

2.  The  State  Museum,  housed  in  tlie  Library  building,  just 
south  of  the  Capitol  building,  is  almost  unicpie  in  character. 
It  presents  an  epitome  of  tlie  life  and  manufactures  of  Pennsyl- 
vania. 

3.  The  City  of  Harrisburg  is  a  civic  ex]ii])it  well  wortli  tlie 
attention  of  any  visitor  to  the  conference.  It  lias  in  ten  years 
made  more  progress,  in  proportion,  tlian  any  other  city  in  the 
United  States,  toward  true  civic  improvement.  Its  two-mile-im- 
proved water  front,  open  to  the  public;  its  55  miles  of  paved 
streets;  its  great  park  system,  including  749  acres,  which  last 


12G 

year  cared  for  more  tliaii  a  million  and  a  quarter  visitors;  its 
notably  efficient  and  pleasing  water  filtration  plant,  open  to 
visitors,  on  Island  Park;  its  dignified  city  entrance,  at  Market 
Street  and  the  river, — all  make  it  worth  a  look  from  those  in  at- 
tendance npon  the  conference. 

I  have  instrncted  the  secretary  of  onr  Board  of  Trade,  Mr. 
James  A.  Bell,  to  present  this  to  you  and  to  proffer  his  assistance 
in'connection  with  any  information  about  the  city. 

Congratulating  you  on  the  already  apparent  success  of  your 
splendid  w^ork,  and  on  the  monumental  and  unique  character  of 
this  conference,  I  am 

Yours  truly, 

J.  HORACE  McFARLAND, 

President." 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  Avould  suggest  that  if  Presi- 
dent McFarland  will  kindly  do  so,  it  would  be  most  agreeable 
if  he  would  be  in  the  ante-room  at  the  close  of  this  session,  to 
meet  delegates  who  desire  to  secure  further  information  or  sug- 
gestions from  him.  Certainly  his  letter  is  much  appreciated. 
Is  there  further  business  to  be  attended  to  at  this  time?  One 
of  the  first  rules  of  physics  is  that  two  objects  cannot  occupy 
the  same  space  at  the  same  time.  The  Chairman  is  reminded  of 
this  rule  Avhen  he  looks  at  the  programme  and  reflects  upon  sev- 
eral requests  that  have  come  to  him  for  other  matters  than  those 
mentioned  on  the  programme  to  be  presented  in  the  short  session 
of  this  morning.  The  fact  is,  we  have  now  just  two  hours,  and  a 
programme  which  easily  could  occupy  double  that  time.  If  mem- 
bers wish  to  give  instructions  for  the  guidance  of  the  proceed- 
ings this  morning,  it  might  facilitate  matters. 

MR.  SHEPPARD:  Mr.  Chairman:  I  move  you  that  the 
Chairman  be  empowered  to  confine  all  discussions  to  three  points 
upon  this  morning's  programme,  and  that  all  talks  on  these  sub- 
jects be  limited  to  three  minutes. 

Seconded  by  Mr.  Merkel,  of  New  York. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  motion  is  the  discussion  on  this 
morning's  session  shall  be  confined  to  the  three  points  on  the 


127 

morning  programme.  It  woncl  save  a  little  time  if  Mr.  Sheppard 
would  tell  ns  just  how  he  defines  those  points,  there  being  four 
papers. 

MR.  SHEPrARD:  First,  the  Penns^dvania  programme,  the 
third,  the  chestnut  blight  and  the  future  of  the  forests,  and  the 
fourth,  the  chestnut  blight  and  constructive  conservation.  The 
second  item  (reports  of  the  State  Foresters),  is  one  that  would 
be  so  general  that  it  seems  to  me  we  could  hardly  get  very  far 
with  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN :  It  is  moved,  then,  that  we  confine  dis- 
cussion to  those  three  subjects,  remarks  to  be  limited  to  three 
minutes,  which,  of  course,  would  govern  except  by  exception 
being  made  by  unanimous  consent. 

PROFESSOR  CLINTON,  of  Connecticut:  What  is  this? 
A  Pennsylvania  Conference,  or  a  Conference  of  the  United 
States? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:    Are  there  other  remarks? 

PROFESSOR  HOPKINS,  of  Washington :  It  might  be  well, 
Mr.  Chairman,  to  state  some  additional  subjects  that  are  to  be 
presented  this  morning,  to  be  taken  into  consideration  along  this 
line.    We  would  like  to  discuss  the  insects  before  we  are  through. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  have  been  numerous  suggestions 
that  we  should  give  some  attention  to  insects. 

MR.  PEIRCE :  I  think  it  would  be  well  for  that  resolution 
to  carry  this  morning,  not  in  order  to  cut  off  discussion,  but 
because  the  programme  this  morning  was  formed  for  constructive 
work  and  for  utilization;  and  I  think  it  would  be  well  if  we  would 
carry  out  that  line  this  morning.  An  opportunity  will  be  given 
this  afternoon,  I  should  think,  for  all  other  subjects  to  be  pre- 
sented. If  we  confine  ourselves  to  the  one  thing  that  is  specially 
mentioned  in  those  three  subjects,  I  think  we  can  get  more  effec- 
tive work  that  if  we  try  to  have  a  diverse  discussion  this  morn- 
ing. 

THE  CHAIRMAN :  If  you  observe  the  subjects  on  the  pro- 
gramme I  think  you  will  find  that  they  would  not  confine  discus- 
sion to  Pennsylvania  questions.    Are  there  further  remarks? 


128 

MR.  CASSELL,  of  Pennsylvania:  Do  3^011  think  it  miglit  Im^ 
^  ell,  under  tlie  circumstances,  to  make  No.  2  on  your  programme 
No.  4?  Then,  if  we  have  time  for  it,  it  could  come  up  and  some 
of  our  friends,  who  have  come  prepared  to  report  under  that, 
would  have  their  opportunity. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:    Do  you  offer  that  as  an  amendment? 

MR.  CASSELL:    Yes,  sir. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:     An  amendment  is  offered,  that  question 
No.  2  follow  No.  4.     Is  the  amendment  seconded? 
The  amendment  was  seconded  by  Mr.  Peirce. 

THE  CHAIRMAN :  Do  you  wish  to  take  any  further  action, 
or  suggest  any  further  action?  If  not,  we  will  put  the  amend- 
ment first. 

The  amendment  was  put  and  carried. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Now  you  have  the  original  motion  as 
amended,  that  divscussion  be  strictly  confined  to  the  three  sub- 
jects. Is  there  any  desire  to  open  up  the  insect  question  this 
morning?     If  so,  we  should  hear  another  amendment. 

PROFESSOR  CLINTON:  I  understand  that  Mr.  Hopkins 
has  something  to  say,  and  I,  for  one,  should  like  to  hear  wliat 
he  has  to  say.  I  move  that,  at  sometime  at  least,  we  hear  from 
him.  I  do  not  care  whether  it  is  this  morning  or  this  after- 
noon. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  would  be  glad  to  entertain 
an  amendment. 

PROFESSOR  RANE,  of  Massachusetts:  It  seems  to  me  that 
we  are  losing  a  good  deal  of  time  on  those  amendments.  I  should 
like  to  hear  the  papers,  and  then  also  hear  Professor  Hopkins 
on  the  insect  question. 

MR.  PEIRCE:     I  would  move  that  Professor  Hopkins  pre- 
sent his  paper  at  two  o'clock  this  afternoon. 
The  motion  was  seconded. 


129 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Tlie  Cliair  has  one  motion  before  the 
Honse,  to  confine  tlie  discnssion  to  tliree  subjects  and  remarks  to 
three  minutes  in  eacli  case. 

(The  motion  was  put  and  carried). 

THE  CHAIRMAN :  Mr.  Peirce  makes  a  motion  that  Profes- 
sor Hopli:ins  be  requested  to  sj)eak  on  the  insect  question  at 
tAvo  o'clock  this  afternoon. 

The  motion  was  seconded  b}^  Mr.  I.  C.  Williams,  was  put  and 
duly  carried. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Having  executed  the  criminal,  we  will 
proceed  with  the  trial,  and  ask  Mr.  Hopkins  if  that  will  be  agree- 
able to  him. 

PROFESSOR  HOPKINS :  I  had  planned  to  leave  for  Wash- 
ington directly  after  dinner,  at  least  at  three  o'clock,  and  I 
am  afraid  that  will  interfere  with  m}'  plans ;  but,  if  it  is  the  wish 
of  the  meeting,  I  will  submit. 

THE  CHAIRMAN :  It  would  be  very  kind  of  Professor  Hop- 
kins to  remain  over.  It  seems  almost  the  unanimous  wish.  We 
will  proceed  with  the  morning  programme,  the  first  paper  being 
''The  Pennsylvania  Programme,"  by  the  first  secretary  of  this 
Conference  and  the  executive  officer  of  the  Chestnut  Blight  Com- 
mission, Mr,  S.  B.  Detwiler.     (Applause). 


THE  PENNSYLVANIA  PROGRAMME. 


By   S.   B.   DETVv^ILER,    EXECUTIVE   OFFICER,    PENNSYLVANIA   CHEST- 
NUT TREE  BLIGHT  COMMISSION. 

Mr.  Chairman,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen:  Although  a  deter- 
mined effort  to  control  and  eradicate  the  chestnut  bark  disease 
was  made  by  a  number  ©f  public  spirited  citizens,  residing  in 
the  vicinity  of  Philadelphia,  it  soon  become  evident  that  they 
were  unable  through  individual  efforts,  to  save  their  valuable 
chestnut  trees  from  destruction.  As  a  result,  Pennsylvania 
took  up  the  fight  against  this  destructive  tree  disease  in  earnest, 
realizing  the  necessity  for  prompt  and  vigorous  action  on  the 
part  of  the  Commonwealth.     A  Commission  was  appointed  in 


130 

June,  1911,  for  the  purpose  of  thorough Ij^  investigating  the 
chestnut  blight,  to  devise  and  apply  ways  and  means  through 
Avhich  it  might,  if  possible,  be  stamped  out. 

In  1909,  according  to  the  report  of  the  State  Auditor  General, 
there  were  7,633,180  acres  of  forest  land  in  Pennsylvania,  of 
which  it  is  estimated  that  21  per  cent.,  or  approximately  one- 
fifth,  is  chestnut  timber.  Allowing  two  poles,  four  ties,  and 
two  cords  of  wood  per  acre,  and  allowing  |2.00  per  pole,  33  cents 
per  tie,  fl.OO  per  cord  for  wood,  the  total  value  of  the  chestnut 
timber  in  Pennsylvania  would  be  |55,000,000,  in  round  numbers. 
If  we  allow  115,000,000  as  the  total  value  of  the  nut  crop,  and 
orchard,  j)ark,  and  shade  trees,  the  total  value  becomes  |70,000,- 
000.  This  does  not  consider  the  value  of  chestnut  forests  as 
protection  for  water-sheds.  By  dividing  the  counties  in  the 
eastern  half  of  the  State  into  zones,  as  shown  on  the  map,  on 
the  same  basis  as  the  above  estimate  is  made,  the  value  of  the 
chestnut  trees  already  killed  or  affected  by  blight  in  Pennsyl- 
vania is  estimated  at  |10,000,000.  Of  this  amount  |7,000,000 
is  the  value  of  poles,  ties,  and  other  wood  products,  and  {|}?3,000,- 
000  is  estimated  as  the  value  of  orchard,  park,  and  shade  trees, 
the  loss  to  nurserymen,  and  to  real  estate  owners.  It  is  believed 
that  13,000,000  is  a  low  estimate  for  the  value  of  these  trees,  since 
the  loss  to  real  estate  owners  and  to  owners  of  shade  and  orchard 
trees  has  been  particularly  severe  in  the  southeastern  corner  of 
the  State  where  the  chestnut  tree  is  of  great  importance  in  this 
respect. 

No  reliable  estimate  of  the  annual  income  from  the  sale  of 
chestnut  products  in  Pennsylvania  can  be  given.  The  statistics 
of  the  Forest  Service,  for  the  year  1909,  show  that  for  the  United 
States,  the  value  of  the  annual  cut  in  that  year  was  approxi- 
mately 120,000,000.  Of  this  amount,  about  one-half  was  the 
value  of  lumber,  lath,  and  shingles,  the  other  half  representing 
the  value  of  poles,  ties,  and  extract  wood. 

Tlie  Pennsylvania  Chestnut  Tree  Blight  Commission  began 
its  investigations  in  August,  1911.  The  general  plan  adopted 
by  the  Commission  is  that  recommended  by  Dr.  Metcalf  in  his 
recent  bulletin  on  the  control  of  the  chestnut  bark  disease.  In 
brief,  this  consists  in  first  determining  the  exact  range  of  the 


131 

disease,  esj)ecially  the  advance  points  of  the  infection.  The  dis- 
eased trees  of  these  spot  infections  are  destroyed  as  soon  as 
Ijossible  after  being  located.  Ultimately,  it  is  planned  to  es- 
tablish a  zone  free  from  the  disease  which  will  be  constantly 
patrolled  for  new  infections.  The  portion  of  the  State  west  of 
this  zone  will  be  thoroughly  scouted  over  at  least  once  each  year 
and  new  spot  infections  eradicated  as  soon  as  found. 

East  of  the  immune  zone  no  immediate  attempt  will  be  made 
to  eradicate  the  disease,  partly  because  most  of  the  energy  will 
be  required  to  fight  the  disease  in  the  immune  zone  and  west- 
ward, and  also  because  of  the  poor  market  for  chestnut  pro- 
ducts, especially  cordwood,  of  which  a  large  amount  will  be  pro- 
duced. It  is  planned,  however,  to  place  competent  men  in  the 
region  of  general  infection  for  the  purpose  of  encouraging  tim- 
ber owners  to  cut  their  diseased  trees  before  they  deteriorate,  and 
to  assist  them  in  finding  a  market  for  this  material.  In  com- 
munities east  of  the  gen'eral  advance  line  where  the  per  cent,  of 
blight  is  not  high  and  the  owners  desire  to  co-operate  in  cutting, 
out  tlie  diseased  trees,  the  Commission  plans  to  give  all  possible 
encouragement  and  assistance. 

At  the  risk  of  being  tedious,  I  Avill  give  a  resume  of  the  pro- 
visions of  the  Act  which  governs  the  work  of  the  Pennsylvania 
Commission. 

Section  1.  A  commission  consisting  of  five  persons,  to  serve 
for  three  years,  is  created. 

They  are  given  power  to  use  all  practical  means  to  destroy 
the  chestnut  tree  bliglit. 

The  Department  of  Forestry  is  directed  to  work  in  collabora- 
tion. 

Section  2.  The  Commission  and  its  agents  or  employes  aro 
given  power  to  enter  upon  any  property  to  determine  whether 
trees  are  attacked  by  blight.  Tliey  are  directed  to  co-operate 
Avith  owners  for  the  removal  of  tlie  trees  and  eradication  of  the 
disease.  Tlie  commission  will  furnisli  every' owner  with  infor- 
mation respecting  the  location  of  iiis  blighted  trees. 

Section  3.  If  an  owner  refuses  to  co-opernte  with  the  Com- 
mission in  applying  remedies  or  doing  any  act  directed  to  be 
done  to  prevent  further  spread,  the  Commission  may  give  liini 


tweiitj^  (lays'  notice  tliat  it  will  proceed  if  lie  does  not.  At  the 
end  of  the  j)eriod  of  notice  the  Commission  may  cause  trees  to 
be  destroyed  and  the  cost  of  doing  such  work  is  collectible  from 
the  owner;  and  if  the  cost  be  not  paid  within  sixty  days,  the 
Commission  is  directed  to  proceed  by  action  at  law. 

An  owner  may  appeal  from  the  decision  of  a  member  of  the 
Commission  or  any  of  its  agents  or  employes,  within  ten  days 
after  receiving  his  notice.  The  Commission  will  then  direct  a 
re-examination  and  accord  a  hearing  to  the  person  making  the 
appeal.    Proceedings  in  the  meanwhile  will  stay. 

Section  4.  The  Commission  is  given  power  to  establish  a 
quarantine  or  destroy  trees  not  affected  by  blight,  if  so  doing  will 
result  in  preventing  spread  of  the  disease.  Good  trees  so  de- 
stroyed are  to  be  paid  for  at  current  stumpage  prices.  In  case 
an  owner  be  dissatisfied  with  an  amount  allowed  him  for  the 
destruction  of  good  trees,  he  may  appeal  to  a  court  for  such 
remedy  as  he  thiidvs  he  may  be  entitled  to. 

Section  5.  Violations  of  this  Act  or  any  of  the  regulations 
adopted  by  the  Commission,  or  resistance  to  an  officer  of  tlie 
Commission,  are  declared  to  be  a  misdemeanor,  and  upon  con- 
viction, the  defendant  may  be  fined  |100  or  imprisoned  one 
month;  and  the  provisions  of  the  Act  are  extended  to  corpora- 
tions as  td  individuals. 

Section  6.  The  Commission  shall  receive  no  pay  but  actual 
expenses  only.  The  emi)lo3'^es  of  the  Commission  are  to  receive 
such  compensation  as  the  Commission  may  determine. 

The  superintendent  of  lUiildings  and  Grounds  shall  furnish 
them  with  suitable  offices. 

Twenty-five  thousand  dollars  is  appropriated  for  scientific  re- 
search and  office  expenses,  and  |250,00()  additional  for  general 
field  work. 

Section  7.     Repeals  all  inconsistent  legislation. 

A  quarantine  on  the  shipment  of  chestnut  nursery  stock  was 
declared  by  the  Commission  soon  after  its  organization.  Regu- 
lations were  made  requiring  that  all  nursery  stock  prior  to  ship- 
ment be  inspected  by  an  agent  of  the  Commission  and  dipped  for 
several  minutes  in  an  approved  fungicide,  preferably  Bordeaux 
mixture,  in  the  presence  of  an  inspector.     Nurserymen  are  pro- 


hibited  from  shipping,  and  transportation  companies  from  carry- 
ing chestnut  stock  not  bearing  the  Commission's  tag.  Chestnut 
nursery  stock  shipped  into  the  State  from  without  is  to  be  held 
at  the  border  of  the  State  for  inspection.  The  nurserymen  and 
transportation  companies  of  the  State  deserve  credit  for  will- 
ingly co-operating  with  the  Commission  to  make  tliis  regulation 
effective. 

A  field  force  of  over  thirty  men  has  been  organized  and  the 
extent  of  the  blight  in  the  State  has  been  determined  approxi- 
mately. The  infected  region  in  Pennsylvania  occupies  the  east- 
ern two-fifths  of  the  State.  The  western-most  line  of  general 
advance  may  be  shown  by  draA\ing  a  line  from  Susquehanna  to 
VVilliamsport,  and  southward  through  Huntingdon  to  the  south- 
ern boundary  of  the  State,  although  there  are  scattered  spot  in- 
fections west  of  this  to  near  the  Ohio  State  line,  in  the  south- 
western corner  of  the  State.  The  Held  work  done  by  the  Com- 
mission last  summer  and  fall  was  largely  scouting  to  locate  the 
extent  of  the  disease.  From  January  15  to  February  15,  1912, 
1,352  infected  trees  on  87  tracts  have  been  disposed  of  according 
to  the  regulations  of  the  Commission,  and  fully  as  many  more 
are  in  the  process  of  removal.  This  is  part  of  the  work,  in  ad- 
dition to  general  scouting  and  the  holding  of  meetings  for  the 
purpose  of  educational  work  on  the  part  of  the  field  agents. 
During  the  summer  months,  when  the  work  is  carried  on  to  the 
best  advantage,  it  is  planned  to  increase  the  field  force  so  that 
the  State  may  be  thoroughly  scouted  and  all  diseased  trees  cut 
out  west  of  the  advance  line. 

On  the  advance  line  and  to  the  westward,  the  owner  of  the 
trees  marked  for  removal  is  required  to  burn  the  bark  from 
visibly  diseased  or  cankerous  portions  of  the  trees.  He  is  also 
required  to  destroy  the  bark  of  the  stumps  of  infected  trees,  either 
by  peeling  the  bark  to  the  ground  line  and  burning  it,  or 
by  burning  the  brush  over  the  stump  until  the  bark  is  consumed. 
Experiments  are  being  tried  to  determine  if  it  is  not  prac1;ical 
to  cover  the  stump  with  kerosene,  crude  petroleum,  tar,  or  some 
similar  material,  to  make  the  destruction  of  the  bark  thorough 
and  less  expensive.    A  trial  shows  that  one  man  at  this  season  of 


134 

the  year  can  peel  six  stumps  10  to  15  inches  in  diameter  in  an 
hour.    That  is  a  conservative  figure. 

It  is  the  policy  of  the  Commission  to  use  every  possible  means 
of  securing  the  co-operation  of  owners  in  cutting  infected  tim- 
ber, before  resorting  to  their  power  under  the  law.  The  power 
that  the  law  gives  the  Commission  is  sufficient  to  insure  respect 
for  its  powers,  but  we  realize  that  the  law  alone  is  not  sufficient 
to  make  the  plan  of  controlling  this  disease  effective  unless  it 
is  backed  by  strong  public  sentiment  in  its  favor.  This  is  being 
accomplished  by  educating  the  public  to  recognize  the  symptoms 
of  the  disease  and  to  realize  its  serious  character  througli  lec- 
tures, field  meetings,  circulars,  newspaper  articles,  and  other 
work  of  an  educational  nature,  such  as  interesting  school  chil- 
dren and  boy  scouts  in  the  movement.  So  far,  no  serious  oi)po- 
sition  has  been  met  with  in  the  work  of  eradication ;  on  the  con- 
trary, we  have  had  exceptional  co-operation  from  all  classes 
of  timber  owners. 

The  Commission  maintains  a  laboratory  for  determining 
doubtful  infectious,  and  for  conducting  experiments  in  the  con- 
trol of  the  disease  through  the  use  of  sj)rays,  fertilizers,  and  medi- 
cations. The  Commission  is  giving  an  im]3artial  trial  to  the  many 
remedies  submitted,  to  determine  their  effectiveness.  These  ex- 
j)eriments  are  being  j)ushed  forward  as  rapidly  as  may  be  done, 
but  no  remedy  will  be  endorsed  by  the  Commission  until  its 
efficiency  has  been  demonstrated  beyond  all  doubt.  Most  of  those 
submitting  remedies  for  the  blight  have  in  mind  the  size  of  our 
appropriation  rather  than  the  practicability  and  efficiency  of 
their  remedies  to  the  public. 

The  Commission  keenly  realizes  its  responsibility  to  the  pub- 
lic for  the  proper  expenditure  of  the  funds  placed  at  its  disposal. 
Yesterday's  proceedings  of  the  conference  emj)hasized  the  great 
need  for  comprehensive  scientific  investigation  into  all  phases 
of  the  blight  problem.  It  is  only  by  finding  out  all  the  facts 
relative  to  the  disease  that  we  can  hope  to  eradicate  it,  and  it 
is  evident  that  many  scientific  facts  of  practical  importance  are 
still  unknown.  For  instance,  it  has  not  yet  been  definitely  deter- 
mined what  agents  are  of  primary  importance  in  distributing  the 
spores,  or  to  what  extent  the  disease   may    be   spread   by   tlie 


135 

transportation  of  barked  and  unbarked  products  of  diseased 
trees,  two  points  whicli  have  a  direct  bearing  on  cost  and 
eflOlciency  of  control. 

The  woodpecker  and  other  birds  have  been  blamed  for  spread- 
ing the  blight,  when  in  my  opinion  it  is  more  apt  to  be  the  fault 
of  insects.  Further  investigations  may  prove  this  to  be  as  much 
a  i)roblem  for  the  entomologist  as  for  the  pathologist.  We  feel 
a  sentimental  interest  in  the  birds.  Nevertheless,  this  does  not 
free  us  from  also  investigating  them  to  find  out  scientifically 
their  exact  relation  to  the  spread  of  this  disease.  In  other  words, 
we  must  investigate  everything,  whether  we  believe  one  thing 
or  another.  At  the  present  time  three  field  agents  have  been  de- 
tailed to  make  special  studies  of  field  conditions  for  the  purpose 
of  securing  further  facts  relative  to  several  of  these  problems. 
Many  lines  of  co-operative  investigation  and  experiment  are  in 
progress  and  others  are  planned.  Detailed  knowledge  of  the 
agents  causing  infection  and  the  time  of  year  when  infection 
occurs,  which  will  be  obtained  as  the  work  progresses,  will  un- 
doubtedly assist  in  making  control  more  effective  and  in  cheapen- 
ing the  cost  of  the  work  of  eradication,  by  pointing  out  the 
simplest  methods  required  to  give  satisfactory  results.  In  the 
meantime,  however,  it  is  our  belief  that  sanitation  is  practical 
and  should  give  good  results  in  checking  the  spread  of  this  dis- 
ease as  it  has  done  in  the  case  of  other  diseases.  Quarantine 
measures  proved  successful  in  checking  outbreaks  of  yellow 
fever  after  the  mosquito  was  convicted.  It  is  more  than  prob- 
able that  by  destroying  the  diseased  bark  of  infected  trees  in  the 
eastern  half  of  the  State,  Ave  shall  also  destroy  the  agency 
which  spreads  the  disease. 

In  my  opinion,  the  big  problem  which  confronts  us  and  which 
more  than  any  other  will  determine  the  success  or  failure  of 
our  undertaking  is  the  question  of  profitable  utilization.  A 
satisfactory  market  for  the  various  classes  of  chestnut  wood 
which  must  be  disposed  of  as  a  result  of  the  cutting-out  method 
of  control,  appears  to  me  to  be  vital  to  the  ultimate  success  of 
the  plan.  The  active  co-operation  of  cliestnut  owners  cannot 
be  willingly  secured  if  they  must  do  tlie  cutting  at  a  loss.  We 
have  found  that  owners  who  were  reluctant  to  cut  have  been 


136 

willing  to  do  so  after  they  found  a  market  for  the  product  which 
enabled  them  to  follow  our  regulations  without  expense,  or  per- 
haps at  a  profit.  The  Commission,  by  acting  as  a  clearing  house 
to  bring  buj^er  and  seller  together,  will  be  able  to  assist  ma- 
terially in  solving  this  problem.  There  are  over  thirty  com- 
mercial uses  for  chestnut  wood,  and  it  seems  likely  that  all  the 
chestnut  Avood  which  will  be  produced  can  be  utilized,  provided 
it  can  be  delivered  to  factories  and  other  consumers  at  a  price 
which  w^ill  allow  it  to  compete  with  other  woods.  The  solution 
of  this  problem  seems  to  lie  in  lower  frieght  rates  on  chestnut 
products.  All  classes  of  chestnut  products  will  i^robably  become 
more  or  less  of  a  glut  on  the  market,  unless  rates  can  be  secured 
which  will  enable  such  material  to  find  a  market  over  a  much 
wider  territory  than  at  the  present.  The  greatest  present  diffi- 
culty however  lies  in  the  disj^osal  of  chestnut  cordwood. 

Pennsylvania's  programme  may  be  summed  up  as  doing  all  that 
can  be  done  along  the  lines  indicated  to  save  the  chestnut  trees. 
If  successful,  we  shall  be  mo^  happy ;  if  we  fail,  after  an  honest 
fight,  we  shall  have  the  satisfaction  of  knowing  that  it  has  been 
money  wisely  spent.  Even  though  we  accomplish  no  more  than 
to  secure  the  best  utilization  of  the  blight  killed  material,  the 
expenditure  of  money  and  effort  is  justified;  and  in  addition,  we 
have  the  educational  value  along  forestry,  conservation,  and 
pathological  lines;  an  object  lesson  to  the  State  and  Nation,  of 
which  we  must  not  lose  sight. 

Pennsylvania  hopes  for  two  great  results  from  this  conference ; 
first,  the  united  effort  of  the  states  here  represented  in  attempting 
the  control  of  the  chestnut  blight,  and  second,  assistance  from 
users  of  chestnut  products  in  devising  ways  and  means  of  profit- 
ably disposing  of  the  products  of  diseased  trees.  The  other  thing 
needful  to  ultimate  success,  that  is,  the  complete  scientific  facts 
of  the  disease,  will  be  obtained  in  the  course  of  time  through  sys- 
tematic investigation,  through  the.  collection  of  facts,  not  through 
hypotheses.     ( Applause ) . 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  next  paper  is  entitled  "Chestnut 
Blight  and  the  Practice  of  Forestry  in  Pennsylvania,"  by  Dr. 
H.  P.  Baker,  Department  of  Forestry,  State  College,  Penna. 


137 


THE  CHESTNUT  BLIGHT  AND  THE  PRACTICE  OF  FOR- 
ESTRY  IN  PENNSYLVANIA. 


BY  DR.   H.  P.   BAIvER,    PENNSYLVANIA  STATE  COLLEGE. 


Mr.  Chairman,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen :  I  am  glad  indeed  of 
this  opportunity  of  presenting  a  very  informal  paper,  and  I 
wish  yon  would  consider  it  as  an  introduction  to  discussion  only. 
I  feel  like  apologizing  a  little  for  presenting  so  short  a  paper. 
In  fact,  I  received  a  telegmm  in  regard  to  it  just  as  I  was  leaving 
State  College  and  have  not  been  back  to  the  College  since,  so 
that  what  I  have  gotten  together  has  been  on  the  run  and  I  am 
afraid  will  not  be  facts  entirely. 

The  Chestnut  Bark  Disease  (Diaporthe  parasitica),  which  was 
first  observed  in  this  country  in  1904  in  the  vicinity  of  New 
York,  has  now  spread  through  the  hardwood  forests  of  ten  to 
twelve  of  the  eastern  States.  Up  to  this  time  the  loss  from  de- 
struction of  chestnut  trees  of  all  ages  kas  probably  been  more 
than  fifty  million  of  dollars.  (From  Mr.  Charles  Marlatt,  of  the 
Bureau  of  Entomology,  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture 
in  National  Geographic  Magazine).  The  chestnut,  because  of  its 
sprouting  capacity,  rapidity  and  vigor  of  growth,  and  the  natural 
durability  of  its  wood,  is  one  of  the  most  valuable  hardwoods 
of  our  eastern  forests.  It  is  especially  valuable  for  farmers' 
wood  lots,  because  of  the  simplicity  of  management  necessary  to 
produce  repeated  yields  of  posts,  poles  and  ties,  and  that  within 
a  shorter  time  than  possible  with  any  other  common  hard  wood, 
or  wood  of  equal  value.  The  length  of  rotation  for  pro- 
duction of  posts  and  poles  may  be  made  so  short,  with  proper 
care  and  protection  of  the  wood  lot,  that  the  ordinary  cry  of  too 
long  an  investment  for  profit  will  not  apply  to  the  growing  of 
chestnut  under  simple  coppice.  By  simple  coppice  we  mean  the 
cutting  of  tlie  forest  and  iis  reproduction  by  sprouts  from  the 
stumps.  Tliis  method  has  been  praticed  by  our  wood  lot  owners 
for  a  good  many  years.  Tliey  have  not  called  it  simple  coppice, 
but  it  has  been  that  just  the  same,  and  they  have  been  practicing 
it  very  successfully  indeed. 


138 

I  cannot  believe,  in  vieAV  of  the  great  valne  of  chestnnt  wood 
and  the  rapidity  and  vigor  of  its  groAvth,  that  we  can  get  along 
withont  it  in  onr  Pennsylvania  forests,  or  in  onr  eastern  forests. 
I  am  optimistic  naturally,  and  I  do  not  believe  that  we  will  ever 
carry  on  forest  management  in  this  country  without  using  chest- 
nut. 

With  the  possibility  of  the  complete  commercial  destruction 
of  this  valuable  tree,  it  is  indeed  time  that  the  foresters  of  the 
country  consider  what  the  effect  of  the  removal  of  this  tree  will 
have  upon  the  future  of  the  forests  and  whether  or  not  the  intro- 
duction of  some  special  method  of  management  may  not  make  it 
more  difficult  for  the  disease  to  spread  or  make  it  easier  for  the 
tree  to  resist  the  disease  by  keeping  it  in  the  most  healthful  and 
vigorous  growing  condition.  Tliese  are  not  easy  questions  to 
answer,  because  we  have  no  precedent  to  follow,  either  in  the 
practice  here  or  abroad.  We  have  never  had  such  a  serious 
enemy  of  the  forest  working  in  a  well  settled  region  of  the  coun- 
try, and  at  a  time  when  both  the  national  and  state  governments 
are  so  well  disposed  to  appropriate  sufficient  funds  for  combating 
the  pest.  In  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  we  are  now  carrying  on 
Avork  against  this  disease  which  Avas  undreamed  of  Avhen  Ave 
Avere  suffering  earlier  from  special  insect  devastations  in  our 
forests. 

A  very  brief  statement  of  the  devastations  of  tAvo  similar  pests 
may  help  us  to  appreciate  somcAvhat  our  problems  in  connection 
Avith  the  blight.  In  1882  the  Larch  Saw-fly  Avorm  appeared  in 
the  native  larch  or  tamarack  in  Maine,  and  during  the  next  five 
years  did  tremendous  damage  throughout  northern  Ncav  England 
and  NeAv  York.  By  destroying  the  needles  of  the  trees  it  caused 
their  sIoav  death  and  not  until  the  territory  had  been  pretty  thor- 
oughly covered  by  the  insect  and  until  certain  natural  enemies 
arose  did  this  insect  finally  disappear.  Nothing,  of  course,  Avas 
done  to  combat  the  insect  or  prevent  its  spread.  While  it  Avas 
not  possible  to  estimate  the  damages  resulting  from  the  Avork 
of  this  insect,  it  must  have  exceeded  several  millions  of  dollars. 
There  was  no  serious  re-occurrence  of  this  pest  until  last  year, 
when  it  appeared  in  the  tamarack  swamps  of  the  Northern  Lake 
States.     It  is  reported  that  Michigan  is  studying  this  pest  Avith 


131) 

the  hope  of  being  able  to  do  some  effective  Avork  against  it.  I 
mention  this  pest  because  it  practically  wiped  out  the  tamarack 
in  northern  New  England  as  a  commercial  tree,  though  after  the 
pest  had  passed  there  Avere  single  trees  and  also  considerable 
areas  left  that  Avere  not  touched  at  all.  We  heard  little  of  it, 
because  there  was  lots  of  timber  everywhere  else,  and  people 
Avere  not  interested.  It  was  not  brought  home  to  them  as  the 
work  of  this  chestnut  disease  is  here  in  Tennsylvania.  Yet  the 
tree  Avas  not  wiped  out  entirely,  and  I  cannot  believe  that,  even 
though  this  blight  disease  may  spread  ever  so  widely  through 
the  Appalachians,  that  the  chestnut  will  become  extinct. 

The  second  and  better  known  devastation  of  forests  by  an  in- 
sect was  that  of  the  Nun  or  Spruce  Moth  Avhich  appeared  over 
considerable  areas  of  the  spruce  forests  in  southern  Germany  in 
1891  and  92.  Bavaria  alone  spent  over  three  hundred  and 
seventy-five  thousand  dollars  in  combating  this  insect  and  finally 
by  the  use  of  bands  or  rings  of  viscous  tar  on  the  trees  prevented 
the  upAvard  movement  of  the  larvae  from  the  ground  and  thus 
the  pest  Avas  destroyed.  Great  areas  of  forests  were  clear  cut 
and  the  market  was  glutted  with  spruce  poles  and  logs  of  certain 
sizes.  Dr.  Endres,  the  great  forest  statistician  of  Munich,  re- 
ports that  even  though  there  was  an  apparent  over-supply  of 
timber  from  these  clear  cuttings,  yet  the  market  did  not  suffer 
and  a  good  average  price  Avas  received  for  all  material.  The 
methods  foUoAved  in  Europe  for  combating  either  insect  or  fun- 
gous pests  are  hardly  applicable  here  because  of  their  denser 
population,  cheaper  labor  and  smaller  and  more  accessible  for- 
est areas. 

Much  was  accomplished  in  Bavaria  and  the  states  of  south - 
AA^estern  Germany  by  the  clear  cutting  of  the  forests  in  broad 
strips.  In  replanting  these  strips  some  attempt  was  made  to 
replace  the  spruce  by  species  not  susceptible  to  injury  by  the 
moth.  This,  however,  was  not  followed  out  to  any  large  extent, 
because  the  spruce  is  the  most  profitable  tree  for  southern  Ger- 
msij]j.  I  believe  that  no  system  Ave  may  use  in  Aviping  out  this 
chestnut  disease,  if  Ave  are  able  to  do  it,  will  preclude  the  use  of 
chestnut  in  our  future  forest  management.  The  forester  is  going 
to  groAV  the  tree  from  Avhich  he  can  make  the  most  money,  if  the 


140 

agencies  of  nature  will  let  him  do  it.  Of  course,  the  agencies  of 
nature  are  against  us  now  in  this  chestnut  disease  fight.  Strips 
of  forest  in  Germany  often  a  half  mile  wide  were  left  while  the 
cleared  areas  ranged  from  a  dozen  rods  up  to  a  quarter  mile  in 
width,  depending  both  upon  the  age  of  the  forest  and  topography. 
The  Government  having  the  right  of  condemnation  entered  pri- 
vate holdings  at  any  time  and  forced  owners  to  cut  infested  areas. 
It  is  fortunate  that  the  act  appropriating  money  for  the  control 
of  the  chestnut  blight  gives  this  same  right.  We  must,  however, 
XH'oceed  witli  great  care  in  condemning  trees  and  timber  so  as  not 
to  arouse  the  opposition  of  the  people  to  the  work  of  bliglit  eradi- 
cation and  the  introduction  of  methods  of  management  which 
will  perpetuate  best  the  remaining  chestnut  and  other  hard 
woods. 

The  two  pests  described  above  are  unlike,  of  course,  a  fungous 
disease  such  as  the  blight.  Insects  are  always  more  easily  con- 
trolled than  fungous  diseases.  I  mention  this  last  one  to  bring- 
out  especially  the  fact  that  Germany  used  a  definite  system  of 
forest  management  to  overcome  a  great  devastation  of  the  forest 
and  that  successfully^ 

Along  the  northern  and  western  extension  of  the  blight  there 
should  be  as  clean  a  cutting  of  the  worst  infested  areas  as  the 
market  will  justify.  The  creation  of  a  belt  or  zone  in  which 
there  is  no  chestnut  is,  probably,  not  practicable  in  combating 
this  disease,  which  is  carried  both  by  birds  and  insects.  In  lo- 
calities where  there  are  good  markets  for  ties,  mine  props,  acid 
Avood,  and  like  small  products,  there  will  be  no  question  as  to 
tlie  practicability  of  clean-cutting  over  considerable  areas. 
AVliere  a  proper  market  exists  the  possibilities  of  future  returns 
under  the  system  of  coppice  will  be  most  excellent  in  our  hard 
wood  forests.  The  United  States  Forest  Service,  in  a  recent 
statement  iis  to  the  possibilities  of  this  sprout  land,  estimates 
returns  as  folloAvs : 

"Good  quality  of  oak  and  chestnut  sprout  land  in  the  Appala- 
chians can  be  purchased  often  for  less  than  five  dollars  an  acre. 
Careful  study  shows  that  in  fifty  years  these  lands  will  yield 
seven  hundred  cross  ties  to  the  acre.  Assuming  that  two  cents 
an  acre  each  year  will  pay  the  costs  of  efficient  fire  protection 
and  that  a  cent  and  a  quarter  per  acre  will  pay  the  annual  taxes, 


141 

the  cross  ties  would  have  to  be  worth,  at  the  end  of  the  fifty-year 
Ijeriod  required  to  produce  them,  eight  aud  one-half  cents  on  the 
stump  to  return  five  per  cent,  compound  interest  on  the  entire 
investment  in  land,  protection  and  taxes.  Any  advance  in  the 
price  of  tie  stumpage  within  the  fifty-year  period  would  mean 
that  much  profit  over  the  percentage  given." 

I  have  referred  to  those  returns  from  sprout  land  simply  to 
show  what  can  be  done  in  the  way  of  i^racticing  simj)le  coppice 
effectively  over  our  hard  wood  forests.  We  can,  I  believe,  stimu- 
late a  market  for  certain  forest  products.  I  know  that  many 
say  we  cannot  help  the  present  market  conditions,  but  I  am  oxj- 
tiiiiistic  in  tliis  as  great  manufacturing  concerns  are  stimulating 
the  market  for  certain  special  x^roclucts.  Why  should  we  not  be 
able  by  showing  fully  the  uses  of  chestnut  stimulate  its  use  to  a 
greater  extent  than  at  present,  at  least?  We  must  emphasize 
continually  the  utilization  phases  of  the  problem,  it  seems  to  me, 
in  seeking  methods  which  will  accomplish  the  greatest  good  for 
owners  of  chestnut  timber. 

Simple  coppice,  which  many  of  our  Pennsylvania  wood  lot 
owners  have  been  carrying  on,  in  a  way,  for  years,  is  without 
doubt  the  best  method  both  for  the  perpetuation  of  the  wood 
lots  and  for  keeping  them  in  such  condition  as  to  insure  the 
chestnut  being  as  hardy  as  possible  against  the  work  of  the 
blight.  That  is,  I  believe  we  can  accomplish  a  great  deal  by 
putting  our  chestnut  forests  ijito  a  more  healthful  condition.  A 
tree  in  a  healthy,  rapid-growing  condition,  is  going  to  be  able  to 
resist  the  blight  and  other  diseases  much  more  effectively  than 
if  it  is  in  the  condition  in  which  too  many  of  our  wood  lots  and 
chestnut  trees  are  at  the  present  time.  Wood  lots  have  been  run 
over  repeatedly  by  fires,  the  humus  is  gone  and  the  soil  has  been 
depleted.  The  trees  are  just  hanging  on,  we  might  say,  and  no 
wonder  they  are  susceptible  to  any  disease  that  may  come  along. 
We  can  accomplish  a  great  deal  by  methods  of  control  that  will 
put  our  chestnut  forests  into  a  better  growing  condition.  Unfor- 
tunately, a  considerable  proportion  of  our  wood  lots,  in  whicli 
there  is  chestnut,  have  been  cut  very  carelessly  and  little  or  no 
protection  given  the  developing  sprouts  from  either  fire  or  graz- 
ing. There  lias  been  more  or  less  complaint  as  to  this  method 
because  of  the  gradual  dying  out  of  the  mother  stump.     A  great 


142 

deal  of  our  cutting  is  clone  carelessly.  Too  high  a  stump  is  left, 
so  that,  when  the  sprout  comes  out,  it  is  liable  to  be  broken  off  by 
wind ;  whereas,  if  the  stump  had  been  cut  low,  even  though  it  re- 
quired a  little  more  bending  of  the  back,  the  sprout  would  be 
able  to  establish  a  root  system  of  its  own,  and  there  is  then  al- 
most, no  limit  whatever  to  the  life  of  the  mother  stump.  If  a 
high  stump  is  left  and  the  sprout  comes  up  six,  eight,  or  ten 
inches  from  the  ground  or  further,  we  cannot  expect  anything 
else  than  the  gradual  dying  out  of  the  mother  stump;  lience  a 
great  deal  can  be  done  in  properly  cutting  the  chestnut  which 
we  want  to  reproduce  by  sprouts.  Another  cause  for  unsatis- 
factory results  from. reproduction  by  sprouts,  and  perhaps  a  jus- 
tifiable one,  in  view  of  present  markets,  is  tlie  leaving  of  old  mis- 
formed  trees  and  forest  weeds.  These  low-growing,  half-trees 
are  usually  very  tolerant  and  shade  the  sprouting  stump  in  a 
way  that  prevents  vigorous  growth.  A  certain  amount  of  shade 
is  desirable,  but,  as  a  rule,  in  our  wood  lots  the  owner,  or  the 
contracting  cutter,  does  not  pay  much  attention  to  these  weeds 
and  leaves  them.  They  take  advantage  of  the  space  and  so  shade 
the  ground  or  the  sprouting  stumps  that  the  sprouts  are  not  vig- 
orous. One  or  two  cleanings  to  remove  these  undesirable  trees 
Avould  make  the  competition  for  space  and  light  much  less  severe 
and  no  doubt  would  result  in  better  formed  chestnut  and  oak, 
and  the  chestnut,  because  healthier,  would  be  better  able  to  re- 
sist both  insects  and  fungi.  These  cleanings  can  be  made  as  re- 
peated cuttings  on  an  exceedingly  short  rotation,  even  though 
the  pi'oduct  will  be  of  value  for  posts  and  mine  props  only.  Ii, 
instead  of  tliis  weeding  out,  so  to  speak,  of  bliglit-infested  trees, 
liere  and  there,  we  might  induce  the  owners  to  use  a  definite  sys- 
tem of  cutting,  I  believe  we  would  be  accomplishing  more  per- 
manent results.  If  instead  of  this  destruction  of  scattered  in- 
fested trees,  which  may  be  and  probably  is  effective  in  the  south- 
eastern part  of  the  State,  on  small  tracts,  if,  in  the  place  of  this 
Aveeding  out  process,  I  say,  we  could  induce  the  owners  to  use 
some  such  system  as  clear-cutting  and  planting  with  non-sus- 
ceptible trees,  or  cutting  so  as  to  keep  the  forest  reproducing 
rapidly  by  sprouts,  I  believe  we  would  accomplisli  very  mucli 
more  for  forestry  in  Pennsylvania.  If  we  could  in  some  way 
bring  about  such  market  conditions  as  to  justify  clear-cutting 


143 

and  repeated  clear-cuttiugs  until  the  blight  has  disappeared, 
might  we  not  only  get  rid  of  the  blight,  bnt  in  the  process  bring 
about  the  introduction  of  definite  forestry  practice? 

I  am  not  condemning  entirely  the  method  of  eliminating  blight 
infested  trees.  That  method  may  be  used  more  successfully  over 
small  areas  of  woodland  such  as  occur  in  the  southeastern  part 
of  the  State.  When  one  thinks  of  the  tremendous  areas  of  wood- 
land whicli  the  State  owns  and  is  owned  privately  for  instance, 
through  Centre  county  and  on  up  into  Clinton  county,  the  propo- 
sition of  going  in  and  cutting  out  infested  trees  is  a  hard  one  to 
consider.  If  over  such  lands  we  can  bring  about  the  introduc- 
tion of  some  method  of  cutting  on  as  short  a  rotation  as  possible, 
and  as  often  as  the  returns  will  justify  it,  it  is  easy  to  see  that 
we  will  keej)  the  forest  growing  rapidly  and  healthfully  and  that 
we  will  do  more  toward  keeping  the  blight  out  and  perpetuating 
the  chestnut  than  going  here  and  there  through  that  great  area 
and  cutting  out  infested  trees.  While  this  Commission,  which  is 
doing  such  a  splendid  work,  and  work  which  will  always  redound 
to  the  credit  of  Pennsylvania,  is  eliminating  infested  trees  here 
and  tbere  through  the  State,  might  it  not  be  able  also  to  intro- 
duce a  system  of  management  among  our  woodland  and  forest 
owners  which  will  continue  beyond  the  life  of  the  Commission? 
At  the  present  time,  by  the  practice  of  eliminating  diseased  trees 
you  are  getting  rid  of  those  infested  trees  only.  In  saying  this 
I  am  not  discountenancing  or  underestimating  the  tremendous 
educational  value  of  the  work  which  the  Commission  is  doing, 
but  if  you  carry  on  this  method  of  eliminating  individual  trees 
only,  what  have  you  done  for  the  owner  after  you  get  through 
with  it?  You  may  have  stopped  temporarily  the  blight,  but  if 
at  tlie  same  time  you  can  introduce  a  system  of  management  thnt 
is  going  to  put  the  whole  wood  lot  into  better  growing  condition, 
I  say  you  are  going  to  accomplish  more  in  the  way  of  permanent 
results  and  more  in  a  forestry  way  in  this  country.     (Applause). 

THE  CHAIKMAN:  The  next  paper  is  entitled  ^'Tlie  Chestnut 
IJliglit  and  Constructive  Conservation,"  by  Dr.  J.  Russell  Smith, 
of  tlie  University  of  I'ennsylvania. 


141 


THE   CHESTNUT    BLIGHT   AND    CONSTRUCTIVE    CON- 
SERVATION. 


By  DR.   RUSSELL   SMITH,    OF  THE  WHARTON   SCHOOL,    UNIVERSITY 

OF  PENNSYLVANIA. 


"A  horse,  a  horse,  my  kingdom  for  a  horse !"  In  these  words 
Shakesj^eare  makes  the  defeated  King  Richard  III  express  the 
value  of  a  certain  piece  of  property,  as  he  paced  the  field  of  de- 
feat, seeking  flight, — not  what  the  horse  would  actually  cost  in 
the  horse  market;  not  what  he  would  bring  in  the  liorse  market, 
was  the  basis  of  valuation,  but  Avhat  was  going  to  happen  to 
Richard  III  if  he  had  to  go  without  him. 

On  that  basis  I  question  if  the  estimates  of  the  value  of  the 
chestnut  species  have  been  placed  anywhere  near  high  enough. 
The  United  States,  with  a  big  timber  cut,  is  within  from  one  to 
three  decades  of  an  era  of  timber  scarcity  which  will  put  us  in 
the  position  of  having  to  go  raise  timber,  rather  than  go  fi/nd  tim- 
ber. In  the  timber-raising  epoch  the  chestnut  comes  to  the 
front.  Taken  altogether  it  is  for  tlie  next  sixty  years  of  this 
nation  a  tree  without  a  peer,  for  no  other  tree  can  touch  it  for  all- 
around  efficiency. 

1.  It  -grows  rapidly.  No  other  good  tree  of  the  forest  can 
equal  it  in  the  speed  with  which  it  makes  wood.  By  the  time 
the  w^hite  oak  acorn  makes  a  baseball  bat  the  chestnut  stump  has 
made  a  railroad  tie.  Cut  it  down  and  it  throws  its  shoots  up 
six  feet  the  first  year  and  keeps  them  going.  This  astoundingly 
fast  start,  in  connection  with  its  record  fast  growth,  makes  it  a 
forest  marvel. 

2.  The  wood  of  no  other  tree  is  so  generally  useful.  It  is  dur- 
able in  the  ground  as  posts,  a  quality  which  makes  it  a  standard 
telegraph  and  telephone  pole,  and  a  good  railroad  tie  or  mine 
prop.  It  is  durable  above  ground,  giving  it  many  virtues  as  lum- 
ber. It  is  also  a  beautiful,  prized,  and  much  used  wood  for  in- 
terior finish.  Lastly,  it  is  full  of  tannin,  so  that  any  chip,  top, 
slab  or  scrap  can  be  digested  for  this  valuable  manufacture. 


145 

The  Blight  Threatens  a  National  Loss.     Who  Loses? 

If  anybody  thinks  he  is  not  a  loser  because  he  has  not  a  chest- 
nut forest  all  his  own,  he  has  another  think  coming. 

(a)  Do  you  wear  shoes?  If  so,  the  chestnut  interests  you, 
because  we  are  just  beginning  to  make  tannin  for  leather  from 
the  wood  of  the  chestnut. 

(b)  Do  you  read?  The  pulp  that  remains  after  the  tannin 
is  gone  makes  paper;  also  a  new  industry  just  starting. 

(c)  Do  you  rent  a  house?  Chestnut  wood  is  one  of  the  most 
satisfactory  woods  for  finishing  the  plain  man's  house. 

(d)  Do  you  use  the  telephone  or  telegraph?  Oliestnut  makes 
one  of  the  best  telegraph  and  telephone  poles. 

(e)  Do  you  go  a-trolleying?  The  chestnut  is  the  tie-produc- 
ing tree  of  the  future,  if  we  do  not  let  the  blight  kill  the  species. 

(f)  Do  you  own  a  farm  or  a  town  lot?  Chestnut  is  one  of  the 
great  fence  post  trees  of  America. 

Lastly  in  its  list  of  virtues  we  should  not  forget  its  value,  and 
especially  its  possibility  as  a  jjroducer  of  food  for  man,  and  sheep, 
goats,  hogs,  and  iDOSsibly  other  livestock.  Already  the  chestnut 
orchards  of  Europe  make  rough  mountain  sides  worth  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  dollars  per  acre.  ComjDare  that  to  x\merican  farm 
lands.  The  chestnut  forests  of  Italy  are  reported  to  make  more 
bushels  of  nuts  year  after  year  than  the  continuously  cropped 
lands  of  Dakota  and  Minnesota  yield  in  wheat.  Fully  one- 
fourth  of  the  State  of  Pennsylvania,  which  is  worthless  for  wheat 
or  corn,  is  better  fitted  for  chestnut  culture  than  any  other  use 
now  in  sight.  If  we  make  them  yield  no  better  than  the  Italians 
do,  that  would  give  us  ninety  million  bushels  of  nuts,  an  amount 
50  per  cent,  greater  than  our  wheat  and  corn  crops  combined. 
It  would  make  this  one  of  the  greatest  sheep  and  pig  fattening 
states  of  the  country. 

The  stake  in  maintaining  the  chestnut  species  from  destruc- 
tion is  large.  The  estimate  of  three  hundred  million  dollars  is 
probably  under,  rather  than  over,  the  proper  figure.  In  the  ab- 
sence of  definite  knowledge  of  the  cure,  how  much  are  we  justified 
in  spending  in  uncertain  efforts?  The  prol)lem  is  one  of  insur- 
ance.    Forty     billion     dollars'     worth     of     property     in     the 

10 


146 

United  States  was  insured  last  year  against  fire,  at  an  average 
rate  of  1.14  per  cent,  or  four  hundred  and  fifty-six  million  dollars 
for  fire  insurance  in  one  year. 

Now  ninety-nine  and  one-third  per  cent,  of  tliat  property  was 
insured  against  a  fire  that  did  not  come.  American  property 
owners  are  paying  over  one  per  cent,  of  the  value  of  their  prop- 
erty to  be  insured  against  a  chance  of  less  than  one  in  one  hun- 
dred and  thirty-three.  Now  it  is  pretty  generally  agreed  here 
that  the  blight  has  a  better  than  a  one  one  hundred  and  thirty- 
third  chance  of  winning  out  if  we  sit  still.  Therefore,  business 
analogy  tells  us  that  we  can  at  least  afford  to  pay  an  average  in- 
surance rate  on  the  risk.  Don't  forget  that  this  fire  has  already 
broken  out.  If  we  raise  an  average  insurance  rate,  for  a  fight- 
ing fund,  we  have  about  three  million  four  hundred  thousand 
dollars  per  year  coming  to  us.  Thus  far  the  whole  American 
nation  has  not  spent  over  one  per  cent,  even  of  that  sum,  and  the 
blight  has  already  destroyed  nearly  or  quite  one  thousand  times 
as  much  as  we  have  spent  to  stop  it. 

If  there  is  any  such  thing  as  constructive  conservation,  this 
chestnut  blight  is  blowing  the  whistle  for  us  to  come  and  con- 
struct, and  get  about  it  quickly. 

What  Can  We  Dof 

1.  All  agree  that  we  can  stop  the  movement  of  nursery  stock. 

2.  All  agree  that  we  can  go  home  and  start  careful  and  thor- 
ough surveys  of  actual  conditions  in  our  various  States. 

3.  Ever}^  State  can  start  scientific  investigation  to  get  more 
knowledge  of  the  trouble. 

4.  Every  State  can  try  the  cutting-out  method  of  control,  at 
least  on  small  outbreaks,  if  not  on  a  larger  scale. 

Therefore  every  State  that  has  any  blight  needs  an  appropria- 
tion of  ten  thousand  dollars  to  fifty  thousand  dollars  for  the 
season  of  1912,  depending  on  the  size  of  the  State.  The  Federal 
Government  also  needs  a  substantial  appropriation.  Altogether 
this  Avill  make  but  a  fraction  of  the  common  sense  fund  that 
would  be  produced  by  a  one  per  cent,  insurance  rate  on  the  pro- 
perty involved. 

There  is  no  evidence  to  bring  out  in  proof  of  the  final  efficiency 
of  cutting  as  a  cure.     On  the  other  hand,  actual  observation  has 


14T 

shown  that  when  a  forest  fire  jumps  your  fire  line,  3^on  jump  on 
it  while  it  is  little  and  stamp  it  out  rather  than  let  it  run  while 
you  devise  a  theoretically  sound  method  of  attack. 

We  are  indebted  to  the  two  gentlemen  who  have  had  the  cour- 
age to  come  here  and  tell  us  that  we  didn't  know.  We  don't 
know.  But  at  least  let  us  exert  ourselves  to  the  extent  of  aver- 
age insurance  cost.  We  don't  know,  but  neither  do  the  courage- 
ous Messrs.  Stew^art  and  Clinton.  Their  objections  savor  largely 
on  the  temperamental.  For  example,  Professor  Clinton  tells 
us  that  he  thinks  drought  and  other  climatic  causes  may  be  re- 
sponsible. This  is  very  reasonable,  but  it  is  astonishing  that 
the  gentleman  did  not  bring  something  that  was  at  least  near- 
evidence.  If  drought  is  the  promoting  factor,  there  have  been 
abundant  opportunities  to  compare  trees  that  were  in  different 
relations  with  respect  to  water.  Connecticut,  with  its  many 
infestations  of  blight  has  given  great  opportunity  to'  find  chest- 
nut trees  languishing  for  water  on  rocky,  sandy,  shaly,  and  other- 
wise very  dry  knolls.  These  could  be  compared  with  trees  grow- 
ing near  water  tables,  in  moist  coves,  below  mill  races,  and  in 
other  moist  locations.  Such  com^Darisons  would  be  in  the  nature 
of  proof  for  what  is  otherwise  an  entirely  unproved  theoretical 
suggestion.  IMr.  Stewart  opposed  the  cutting-out  plan,  men- 
tioning as  evidence  the  'fact  that  Metcalf  and  Collins  had  cut 
out  an  infestation  and  two  years  later  the  stumps  showed  a  fun- 
gus and  six  trees  nearby  had  the  blight.  Would  it  not  be  better 
to  note  that,  after  informal  and  experimental  cutting  out,  only 
six  trees  had  blight?  Mr.  Stewart  also  mentions  as  a  cause  for 
despair  the  fact  that  an  outbreak  at  Fontella,  Va.,  had  been  go- 
ing since  1903.  A  Virginia  report  states  that  this  outl)reak  has 
in  that  time  spread  to  about  an  acre  of  woodland.  ^ 

A  Lesson  From  the  Sau  Jose  8eale. 

This  miserable  little  bug  with  an  umbrella  on  his  back  had 
us  scared  nearly  to  death  ten  years  ago  because  he  killed  our 
fruit  trees  so  mercilessly.  Now  any  farmer  can  Inrii  him  into 
soap  and  keep  his  orchard  clean,  and  the  scientists  are  now  tell- 
ing us  to  go  at  \\\^  chestnut  bliglit;  only  there  is  tliis  difference 


148 

— a  man  can  go  after  the  scale.  It  takes  the  State,  and  much 
better,  all  of  the  States,  to  stop  the  chestnut  blight,  for  he 
travels  faster  than  the  scale. 

A  National  Scientific  Campaign,  or  a  National  Sta.ndui>  Fight. 
An  Example  from  Africa. 

We  have  national  corporations,  national  parties,  national  co- 
operation to  make  a  meal  even,  and  now  we  have  got  to  make  a 
national  organization  to  light  a  tree  enemy  just  as  we  would  to 
fight  a  man  enemy.  The  problem  is  big,  but  we  knoAV  how  if 
we  will. 

We  have  a  splendid  example  in  the  South  African  cattle 
plague.  It  swept  for  liundreds  of  miles,  taking  all  cattle  before 
it  as  frost  does  the  flies.  TJien  the  South  African  Governments 
drew  a  quarantine  line  around  it  and  fought  it  to  a  standstill 
right  there.  The  United  States  should  try  the  same  with  the 
chestnut  blight. 

An  Example  from  the  Peach  Yellows. 

The  peach  yellows  is  a  disease  of  which  we  know  just  two 
things.  The  first  is  that  it  is  a  sure  kill  for  trees,  the  second 
that  it  can  be  controlled  by  rigid  quarantine.  Before  we  knew 
tlie  second  fact,  the  disease  had  actually  broken  up  communities, 
as  in  the  Michigan  peach  belt,  and  reduced  land  values  from 
one  hundred  dollars  an  acre  to  thirty  dollars  per  acre.  With 
quarantine  in  operation,  and  the  disease  still  unknown,  these 
same  localities  have  more  peach  trees  than  ever  and  are  again 
prosperous. 

A  Lesson  from  the  Foot  and  Mouth  Disease  of  Cattle  in  Penn- 
sylvania. 

The  foot  and  mouth  disease  in  this  State, — which  cost  us  the 
life  of  one  of  tlie  most  efficient  men  we  have  ever  had,  namely 
the  brother  of  our  Chairman,  Dr.  Leonard  Pearson, — the  foot 
and  mouth  disease,  which  is,  practically,  sure  and  quick  death, 
and  so  contagious  that  a  stableman  can  carry  it  miles  in  his 
clothes,  broke  out  recently  in  Pennsylvania  in  many  places.  Yet 
this  State  jumped  on  it,  and  by  a  sharp,  stiff,  stand-up  fight,  it 


149 

was  absolutely  stamped  out  in  a  few  weeks  bj  tlie  rigorous  es- 
tablishment of  a  dead  line.  I  think  this  chestnut  disease  calls 
for  constructive  conservation  of  just  that  kind.      (Applause). 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Last  call  for  resolutions:  All  resolutions 
should  be  presented  without  delay  at  the  desk. 

We  are  now  to  hear  reports  by  State  Foresters.  What  is  your 
pleasure  in  reference  to  the  time  to  be  assigned  to  this  part  of 
the  programme?  Do  you  desire  to  place  any  limit  on  reports? 
We  desire,  of  course,  to  have  them  unlimited  but,  in  your  judg- 
ment is  it  necessary  to  place  any  time  limit  on  these  reports? 

PEOFESSOR  HARSHBERGEE,  of  Pennsylvania:  I  believe 
we  have  a  time  limit  of  half  past  eleven,  and  it  is  now  within  an 
hour  of  that  time,  so  I  believe  we  are  obliged  to  have  these  re- 
ports within  the  next  hour. 

THE  CHAIRMAN :  In  your  opinion,  would  it  be  well,  then,  to 
limit  the  reports  to  say  eight  minutes,  except  by  unanimous  con- 
sent for  more  time? 

PROFESSOR  HARSHBERGER:  I  would  imagine  so;  eight 
minutes  with  two  minutes  leeway,  making  it  ten  minutes  in  all. 
I  make  that  motion:  that  the  papers  be  limited  to  eight  minutes, 
with  two  minutes  alloAvance. 

The  motion  was  seconded  and  carried. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  motion  prevails.  It  can,  of  course, 
be  excepted  to  under  unanimous  consent.  Is  tlie  State  Forester 
or  a  representative  prepared  to  report  for-  Maine?  (No  re- 
sponse).    NeAV  Hampshire?     (No  response).     Massachusetts? 

PROFESSOR  RANE;  Is  the  idea  of  this  report  to  give  some- 
thing along  the  line  of  work  being  done  in  the  State 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  will  read  the  subject  as  stated 
on  the  programme :  ''Reports  of  State  Foresters  or  other  officials 
on  the  present  extent  of  the  bark  disease;  an  estimate  of  the 
present  and  possible  future  losses."  In  answering  Professor 
Pane's  question,  it  would  seem  desiral)le  to  the  Chair  to  discuss 
this  subject  from  the  standpoint  of  liis  OAvn  State,  if  that  answers 
your  question. 


150 

rKOFESSOli  EANE:  Mr.  Cliairmaii  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Convention :  In  so  far  as  Massaelmsetts  is  concerned,  we  have 
tliis  cliestnnt  bark  disease  and  we  have  also  gone  at  it  in  what 
seems  to  ns  a  practical  way.  I  simpl^^  wish  to  give  you  an  idea 
of  how  we  are  tackling  the  problem.  In  the  first  place,  the  dis- 
ease was  found  scattered  here  and  there.  I  made  arrangements 
with  Dr.  Metcalf,  because  I  considered  he  was  the  man  of  the 
hour  to  give  us  instructions  and  ideas,  to  go  forward  and  carry 
out  this  work.  Dr.  Metcalf  came  on  to  Boston  and  we  went  over 
the  whole  proposition,  and  finally  arranged  to  have  a  man  come 
on  last  spring  and  go  over  the  whole  State.  He  spent  the 
months  of  June,  July,  and  August,  visiting  on  a  motorcycle  all 
the  forest  sections  of  the  State,  to  study  the  problem,  and  we 
found  that  the  disease  was  far  more  prevalent  than  even  Dr. 
Metcalf  realized.  Now  when  the  report  came  out  from  Dr.  Met- 
calf's  assistant,  the  first  idea  he  conveyed  to  us  was  that  the 
State  of  Massachusetts  should  call  upon  its  Legislature  for  a 
large  sum  of  money.  Most  of  you  know  undoubtedly  that  we 
have  been  tackling  the  gypsy  and  browntail  moth  problems,  and 
that  these  depredations,  which  have  been  pretty  much  confined 
to  Massachusetts,  and  more  recently  New  Hampshire  and 
Maine  have  incurred  much  expense.  Now  we  have  been  tackling 
p/roblems  more  or  less  of  this  sort  and,  as  State  Forester,  I  cer- 
tainly did  not  wish  to  make  the  mistake  of  plunging  into  this 
chestnut  disease  problem  before  I  was  sufficiently  familiar  with 
it.  We  have  a  pretty  thorough  organization  in  ]\*Iassachusetts 
from  the  forestry  management  standpoint,  and  of  the  papers  and 
discussions  that  have  come  up  here,  the  one  that  pleased  me  per- 
haps most  Avas  the  talk  that  was  given  by  Professor  Baker  of  the 
State  College.  Gentlemen,  it  seems  to  me  that  in  spite  of  the 
question  of  our  needs  for  plant  mycologists  and  specialists,  that 
the  necessary  thing  is  to  get  further  at  the  root  of  the  trouble,  and 
that  is  to  introduce  a  better  organization  in  this  present  develop- 
ment of  our  forest  states  and  nation,  a  more  definite  forestry 
management  from  a  fundamental  standpoint.  The  whole  prob- 
lem, it  strikes  me,  of  insect  and  fungus  depredations,  is  one  of 
looking  at  it  and  studying  it  from  the  broader  viewpoint,  namely 
that  of  the  system  of  forestry  management.  We  have  had  the 
gypsy  and  broA\'ntail  moth  work  in  Massachusetts,  more  or  less 


151 

similar  in  a  general  way,  to  this  chestnut  disease.  We  are  spend- 
ing in  Masachusetts  practically  a  million  dollars  every  year  on 
these  insects.  Furthermore,  if  Massachusetts  had  not  taken  hold 
of  this  problem  as  -it  did,  undoubtedly  these  moths  would  have 
been  into  Pennsylvania  by  this  time.  But  we  have  taken  hold  of 
it  and  we  have  methods  and  we  understand  more  about  this  prob- 
lem than  we  possibly  could  without  this  large  appropriation. 
The  business-like  v^aj  in  which  the  State  took  hold  of  it  has 
commended  itself.  The  State  of  Massachusetts  is  greatly  in- 
terested as  we  have  been  discussing  the  pro  and  con  as  to  means 
and  ideas  with  regard  to  this  blight  disease.  It  is  the  same 
thing,  going  through  the  same  thing  only  of  another  kind  that 
the  gypsy  moth  fight  in  Massachusetts  has  been.  Even  some  of 
the  best  entomologists  of  the  country  seemed  to  think  originally 
that  the  attempt  to  destroy  the  moths  was  money  thrown  away, 
but  the  people  living  in  the  infested  country  have  appreciated 
the  importance  of  it  and  we  realize  to-day  that  the  money  has 
been  well  spent.  We  have  spent  practically  seven  millions  of 
dollars  on  these  insects.  On  this  chestnut  blight  disease,  there- 
fore, we  do  not  care  to  go  to  a  big  expenditure  in  Massachusetts. 
AVhat  I  have  done  thus  far  with  this  chestnut  disease  is  to  en- 
deavor to  systematize  the  work  and  carry  it  out  along  the  same 
line  that  we  are  carrying  out  our  gypsy  and  browntail  moth  de- 
predation work  and  our  general  forestry  work.  Forest  fires  have 
been  mentioned.  The  economic  imj)ortance  of  putting  a  stop  to 
forest  fires  came  along  after  the  moths  came.  One  thing  has 
evolved  into  another.  At  the  present  time  I  veritably  believe 
that  in  certain  sections  of  Massachusetts  the  gypsy  moth  has 
been  a  blessing  to  those  sections.  Why?  Because  formerly 
there  was  no  system  of  forestry  management  and  little  forest 
education  developed.  We  have  gone  in,  cleaned  up  stumps, 
dead  wood  and  debris,  selected  better  species  of  various  trees, 
that  are  now  protected,  and  in  twenty  to  twenty-five  years  I 
veritably  believe  the  product  will  pay  for  all  the  expenses  we 
have  been  to  up  to  the  present  time. 

Now  this  question  of  the  blight  disease  again  :  As  I  linve  looked 
upon  it, — my  observations  may  not  be  very  keen, — but  as  I  liave 
looked  upon  it  in  my  own  mind,  we  find  it  wliere  the  conditions 
are  unbalanced.     That  is  here  appears  to  be  the  worst  condition 


152 

we  have.  I  was  out  with  a  man  owning  seven  thousand  acres  in 
the  western  part  of  the  State  last  Friday.  The  disease  was  the 
worst  where  tliinnings  had  been  made  and  a  few  trees  allowed  to 
stand  because  they  were  not  large  enough  to  cut  into  ties. 
These  forests  were  unbalanced  and  the  air  and  sun  allowed  to 
get  in.  The  blight  was  on  the  southern  side ;  the  cankers  showed 
up  largely  there.  But  in  the  stands  where  we  had  normal  con- 
ditions, we  found  only  a  diseased  tree  once  in  awhile.  There  is 
an  unbalancing  condition  again  where  forest  fires  have  raged 
through  the  State  year  after  year  and  the  trees  are  abnormal 
and  only  half  alive  anyway.  There  you 'find  the  disease  seems 
to  travel  more  rapidly  than  it  does  where  the  trees  are  under 
normal  conditions  and  have  a  forest  floor  where  there  is  plenty 
of  moisture  and  the  conditions  are  more  favorable.  I  have  gone 
over  it  with  some  of  our  best  practical  men,  lumber  men,  and 
they  seem  to  think  that  it  is  a  problem  that  is  going  to  solve 
itself.  The}'^  are  good,  practical  men;  they  have  been  in  the 
business  a  great  many  years,  and  are  reluctant  to  believe  that  w^e 
will  lose  all  our  chestnuts.  The  way  that  we  are  endeavoring 
to  solve  this  problem  in  Massachusetts  is  this:  I  have  a  forest 
warden  in  each  town,  who  is  appointed  by  the  officials  of  the 
town,  subject  to  the  approval  of  the  State  Forester.  I  am  en- 
deavoring to  educate  these  men  so  that  they  will  know  this 
disease.  We  have  notified  all  of  our  papers  throughout  the  State 
that  it  is  up  to  the  i^eople  that  own  chestnut  trees  that  they 
become  familiar  with  the  disease;  otherwise  they  are  likely  to 
lose  their  chestnut  stand.  We  are  sending  out  literature.  "We 
have  just  sent  out  a  recent  bulletin.  The  idea  of  the  bulh^tin 
Avas  to  show  photographs  so  that  a  man  could  take  the  bulletin 
and  go  out  and  determine  whether  the  disease  is  present  or  not. 
We  send  men  from  the  office,  at  the  expense  of  the  State,  to 
assist  anybody  in  cutting  out,  at  the  same  time  giving  them 
ideas  as  to  better  forestry  management;  and  with  that  the  idea 
of  education,  endeavoring  to  make  the  work  self-sustaining,  so 
that  the  people  will  attend  to  it  themselves  and  without  neces- 
sitating State  expense.  I  believe  the  first  law  is  preservation, 
self-preservation,  and  I  believe  we  ought  to  educate,  ought  to 
put  out  more  practical  publications  that  people  will  read.  If 
boiled  right  down  to  the  essence  of  the  work,  farmers  will  look 


153 

after  their  own  trees,  and  I  think  forestry  management  will 
ultimately  solve  the  problem  as  much  as  anything.  There  are 
lots  of  ideas  that  I  would  like  to  suggest;  for  instance,  the  com- 
parative conditions  as  between  insects  and  fungous  diseases.  We 
have  had  a  great  time  in  handling  the  gypsy  moth ;  but  in  their 
case  we  can  see  the  egg  clusters,  while,  when  you  come  down 
to  a  fungous  disease,  it  is  quite  another  proposition  and  a  propo- 
sition also  that  it  seems  to  me  we  cannot  begin  to  fathom  so 
quickly  as  one  can  in  the  handling  of  the  insect.       (Applause). 

THE  CHAIRMAN :  Does  anyone  wish  to  ask  one  short  ques- 
tion of  Professor  Rane? 

PROFESSOR  CLINTON:  I  understand  when  they  began 
the  work  in  Massachusetts,  they  were  going  to  locate  the  disease 
and  cut  it  all  out,  and  that  Professor  Rane  had  the  authority 
to  send  men  into  private  woodlands  of  the  farmers  of  the  State 
and  destroy  those  trees,  if  he  saw  fit.  He  has  not  done  that. 
Why? 

PROFESSOR  RANE:  As  for  the  question  of  cutting  out 
the  chestnut  tree,  that  was  our  plan  wheii  Dr.  Metcalf  sent 
his  man  in,  and  we  went  all  over  it.  I  selected  one  of  our  best 
woodchoppers  and  he  was  to  follow  along  and  wherever  the  ex- 
pert found  a  tree, — w^e  expected  to  find  one  in  about  every  other 
county  in  Massachusetts, — he  was  going  to  cut  it  out.  This 
fellow  started  out  with  an  axe,  and  when  we  came  to  some  old 
trees  that  were  about  ten  feet  in  circumference,  and  there  was 
some  question  as  to  whether  the  disease  was  there  or  not,  but 
they  thought  they  had  better  cut  it  out  anyway,  this  man  did  not 
feel  as  if  he  was  equal  to  the  occasion.  It  was  practically  im- 
possible to  do  anything  along  those  lines  and  the  trouble  was 
that,  even  among  the  experts,  there  was  quite  a  discussion  as  to 
whether  the  disease  was  prevalent  or  not.  It  is  an  impossible 
problem  to  cut  out  under  our  conditions.  The  forestry  manage- 
ment end  of  handling  the  wood  lot,  and  taking  it  out  where  you 
can,  I  think  is  the  practical  solution. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:     Connecticut. 

PROFESSOR  CLINTON :  We  have  no  appropriation  in  Con- 
necticut to  fight  this  trouble  or  to  stop  it.     We  have  merely 


154 

carried  on  our  investigations  Avitli  tbs  usual  ajopropriations  of 
our  State.    We  are  asking  for  no  special  fund. 

I  have  a  paper  which  I  desire  to  present,  and  I  want  to  state 
that  it  is  signed  not  onlj^  by  myself  as  botanist,  but  also  by  Mr. 
Spring,  State  Forester: 

CHESTNUT  BLIGHT  SITUATION  IN  CONNECTICUT. 

First  Reports. 

The  first  specimens  of  chestnut  blight  from  Connecticut  were 
sent  to  the  Experiment  Station  in  November,  1907,  by  F.  V. 
Stevens  of  Stamford,  who  had  found  the  disease  doing  consider- 
able damage  in  his  region  during  that  summer.  He  also  stated 
that  he  thought  he  had  seen  the  disease  in  one  or  two  other  towns 
in  the  state.  Since  that  report,  others  have  stated  to  us  that 
they  had  seen  the  disease  earlier,  but  had  not  known  its  nature 
at  the  time.  For  example,  Mr.  G.  H.  Hollister,  who  is  here  to- 
day, states  that  in  tlie  summer  of  1905  he  found  a  tree  on  the 
Edgewood  Park  Estate  at  GreenAvich  that  he  now  believes  to 
have  had  the  blight.  Our  forester  reports  that  a  farmer  in  the 
town  of  Easton  also  noticed  the  disease  as  early  as  1905.  These 
three  towns  are  all  in  Fairfield  county,  next  to  New  York  State. 
In  the  winter  of  1909,  Mr.  Newton  J.  Peck  brought  a  specimen  to 
the  Station  from  Woodbridge,  New  Haven  County,  and  stated 
that  he  had  iioticed  the  disease  in  his  forest  for  four  or  five  years. 
So  far,  then,  we  have  no  information  of  the  presence  of  the  dis- 
ease in  Connecticut  before  1905. 

Subsequent  Reports. 

In  the  report  of  the  Connecticut  Experiment  Station  for  1908, 
we  noted  the  disease  in  twenty-two  of  the  twenty-three  towns 
of  Fairfield  County,  in  eight  towns  of  New  Haven  County,  and 
we  had  an  unverified  report  of  its  occurrence  in  New  London 
County,  in  the  eastern  part  of  the  State,  making  thirty-one  towns 
in  all. 

In  the  Station  report  for  1909-10,  we  listed  the  disease  from 
all  the  twenty-three  towns  of  Fairfield  County,  twenty-one  towns 
of  New  Haven  County,  fourteen  of  Litchfield,  seven  of  Hart- 
ford, two  of  Middlesex,  three  of  Tolland,  one  of  Windham  and 
one  of  New  London  County.    Tims  we  found  the  disease  present 


155 

in  all  of  the  counties  of  the  State,  and  in  seventy-two  of  the 
towns.  Of  these  onh^  seven  towns  were  east  of  the  Connecticut 
Eiver,  but  this  region  had  not  been  carefully  examined.  At  the 
Albanj^  conference,  held  October  19,  1911,  we  reported  the  dis- 
ease present  in  one  ■  hundred  and  twenty  towns  of  the  State. 
To-day  (February,  1912)  we  have  records  of  its  presence  in  161 
of  the  1G8  towns  of  the  State  (all  but  Ashford,  Eastford,  Put- 
nam and  Haddam),  and  we  have  every  reason  to  believe  that  a 
careful  search  would  reveal  its  presence  in  these  four  towns. 

Present  Situation. 

The  present  situation  in  Connecticut,  then,  is  that  we  have 
the  disease  in  more  or  less  abundance  in  practically  every  town. 
We  are  surrounded  on  three  sides  by  states  that  have  the  disease 
more  or  less  abundant  in  their  differenf  counties.  On  the  south, 
we  are  separated  by  Long  Island  Sound  from  Long  Island,  which 
also  has  the  disease. 

In  Fairfield  County  as  early  as  1907,  the  disease  was  doing 
considerable  harm,  and  by  1909  it  was  very  serious,  while  to-day, 
from  fifty  to  seventy-five  per  cent,  of  all  the  chestnuts  are  affected 
or  dead.  New  Haven  County  began  to  show  evidence  of  trouble 
in  1908,  and  at  present  the  disease  is  present  in  most  of  the 
forests  and  serious  in  many  of  them.  Litchfield  County  did  not 
begin  to  show  the  trouble  until  1909  and  1910,  but  last  year  it 
was  doing  considerable  damage  there.  Hartford  and  Middle- 
sex counties  also  last  year  began  to  show  its  presence  in  their 
forests,  in  some  places  very  prominently.  These  counties  are 
all  west  of  the  Connecticut  Elver.  East  of  the  river  the  trouble 
is  not  nearly  so  general  or  abundant,  but  in  some  places  in  1911 
it  was  causing  considerable  damage. 

The  year  1911  more  than  any  other  seemed  to  be  favorable 
for  the  spread  and  injurious  effects  of  the  fungus.  This  we  at- 
tribute to  the  unusual  drought  of  that  year,  lasting  from  early 
spring  until  the  last  of  July.  This  is  the  fifth  and  most  severe  of 
a  series  of  drought  years  tliat  Ave  have  had  since  1907. 

Control  Worlc. 

Our  work  in  the  field,  besides  locating  the  disease,  has  been 
along  the  followina'  lines: 


156 

(1)   Stndyiiig  tlie  progress  of  tlie  disease  on  marked  trees. 

(2).  Setting  ont  seedling  cliestnuts,  including  a  few  culti- 
vated varieties,  in  infested  forests,  to  see  how  the  disease  will 
affect  them. 

(3).  Attempting  control  in  a  badly  diseased  private  forest  by 
the  cutting  out  method.  This  did  not  prove  of  value,  and  after 
two  seasons  we  have  discontinued  tlie  work.  Opening  up  the 
forest  there  seemed  harmful  to  the  chestnuts  left,  especially  on 
south  and  west  exposures. 

(4).  Attempting  control  by  the  cutting  out  method  in  a  state 
forest  where  the  disease  was  not  conspicuous.  This  work  has 
just  been  started  in  our  forest  at  Portland.  Previous  to  1911, 
only  a  few  diseased  trees  had  been  seen  in  this  forest.  Our  pre- 
liminary survey  this  winter,  however,  has  shown  it  now  present 
more  abundantly  than  we  expected.  On  account  of  the  time  it 
took  to  locate  the  diseased  trees  and  the  labor  and  cost  of  cutting 
them  out,  we  cannot  advocate  this  as  a  practical  method  for 
general  use  in  the  State,  even  if  it  proves  successful,  which  we 
doubt,  since  the  disease  is  generally  present  in  the  neighbor- 
hood. 

Recommendations. 

In  Connecticut  we  are  not  asking  the  legislature  for  any 
special  appropriation  to  fight  this  disease,  and  do  not  expect  to. 
We  are  taking  no  concerted  action  to  control  it  and  we  do  not 
think  this  feasible.  We  are  only  occasionally  advising  cutting 
out,  when  the  disease  first  appears,  as  a  possible,  though  not  a 
proved  method  of  control.  Where  a  wood  lot  as  a  whole  is  mer- 
chantable, and  the  disease  is  present,  we  advocate  that,  if  market 
conditions  are  favorable,  it  be  cut  and  disposed  of  in  the  ordi- 
nary way.  AVhere  the  trees  are  not  as  a  whole  of  marketable 
size,  and  the  disease  is  present,  we  advocate  the  removal  of  the 
dying  trees,  and  their  disposal  as  poles,  ties  or  cordwood,  as 
their  size  may  permit.  We  have  no  uniform  recommendations 
for  treatment  of  sprout  growth  too  small  for  market  purposes. 
We  are  trying  to  prevent  a  glut  of  the  market  by  discouraging 
wholesale  cutting  of  the  forests,  and  as  yet  we  have  noticed  no 
general  glut  and  drop  of  prices  except  for  cordwood  in  certain 
towns,  and  for  7x9  ties,  for  which  the  demand  on  the  part  of 


157 

tlie  railroads  has  evidently  gone  down.  On  the  whole,  however, 
there  has  been  more  timber  cut  than  nsual.  We  have  no  small 
factories  for  the  ntilization  of  waste  products,  such  as  bark  and 
wood  for  tannin.  The  brass  factories  and  the  brick  kilns  use  up 
most  of  the  chestnut  cordwood  in  their  vicinities,  thus  preventing 
much  of  a  glut.  Lime  kilns  also  utilize  considerable  of  the  cord- 
wood.    A  relatively  small  amount  is  made  into  charcoal. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Are  there  any  questions  for  Professor 
Clinton? 

MR.  CHESTER  E.  CHILD :  I  would  like  to  ask  Professor 
Clinton  what  was  the  result  of  the  cutting  out  of  the  infected 
trees  on  any  tracts  or  estates  he  knoAvs  about;  where  the  affected 
trees  were  removed,  what  was  the  result  on  the  trees  thai  re 
mained? 

PROEESSOR  CLINTON:  That  was  on  the  estate  of  one  of 
the  wealtliiest  men  in  Connecticut,  so  he  had  money  enough  to 
cut  them  out  if  he  wanted  to.  It  was  on  the  southern  exj)0sure  of 
a  hill  and  we  found  that,  Avhere  cut  out,  the  trees  left  seemed 
to  suffer  more  from  drought,  etc.,  and  be  more  injured  by  blight. 
We  also  found  that  by  cutting  out  the  trees  and  not  removing 
the  bark  from  the  stumps,  about  thirty  per  cent,  of  those  stumps 
showed  the  disease  present  on  the  bark  that  was  left.  Up  to 
last  summer  the  forests  in  the  same  region,  on  the  northern  ex- 
posure, had  not  suffered  much  from  blight.  This  gentleman 
said  that  lie  would  go  on  if  we  wanted  to  continue  the  experi- 
ment, but  he  thought,  as  far  as  he  was  concerned,  in  the  future 
he  would  prefer  to  cut  the  trees  as  they  died.  That  was  not 
a  thorough,  careful  experiment  like  they  are  going  to  conduct 
here  in  Pennsylvania,  by  cutting  every  diseased  tree  down  and 
burning  the  bark  and  all  that,  but  it  was  about  the  way  a  prac- 
tical man  would  do  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  is  lime  for  one  moi-e  (lucsdoii,  if 
anyone  desires  to  ask  one. 

MR.  THALHEIMER :  Hav(i  you  found  out  whether  tlie  con- 
ditions differ  between  low  and  high  ground  and  the  exposure,  on 


158 

the  southern,  iiortherii,  or  eastern  and  western  sides;  that  is, 
whether  you  found  any  infected  trees  on  the  eastern  side  of  the 
mountain  ? 

PEOFESSOR  CLINTON :  It  shows  most  frequently  on  the 
eastern  and  southern  side  and  around  to  the  western  and  south- 
ern side  of  exposed  trees.  That  is,  the  more  northern  slopes  are 
generally  less  affected,  in  our  experience.  Examine  the  chestnut 
trees  in  Fairmount  Park  in  Philadelphia,  and  see  if  the  blight 
does  not  come  out  more  on  the  western  and  southern  side.  Look 
at  your  trees  and  see  if  you  do  not  see  injuries  on  that  exposure, 
that  is,  before  the  trouble  becomes  general. 

THE  CHAIEMAN :    New  York  State. 

MR.  G.  L.  BARRUS,  of  the  Conservation  Commission:  Mr. 
Chairman :  First  of  all,  I  want  to  say  that  the  commissioners 
and  Superintendent  Pettis  hoped  to  be  here  for  this  Conference, 
but  were  unavoidably^  kept  away,  and  I  regret  to  say  that  we 
have  not  any  definite  statistics  to  give  as  to  the  value  of  the 
chestnut  or  the  amount  that  has  been  destroyed.  I  think  this 
question  has  brought  up  the  need  of  such  statistics;  if  it  has 
not  done  anything  more,  it  has  brought  uj)  that  need.  We  have 
been  confining  our  efforts  in  New  York,  been  confining  this  forest 
policy  to  sixteen  counties,  which  include  the  Adirondacks  and 
Catskills.  About  six  million  acres  of  forest  land  are  included 
in  that  area.  Outside  of  that,  there  is  another  six  million  acres 
of  farm  wood-lot  land  ,which  has  had  little  thought  in  the  past 
as  regards  forest  management.  This  question  of  chestnut  bark 
disease  has  brought  our  attention  to  this  other  six  million  acres 
of  land.  If  it  has  not  done  anything  more,  it  has  done  that,  and 
we  are  now  concerned  in  finding  some  way  of  branching  out,  tak- 
ing care  of  and  giving  management  to  this  portion  of  the  forest 
land  of  the  State. 

As  to  the  distribution  of  the  chestnut,  I  might  say  tlmt  we 
sent  about  four  thousand  circular  letters  throughout  the  State, 
asking  if  the  chestnut  was  found  in  the  towns  where  these  differ- 
ent persons  resided,  and  asking  if  the  chestnut  bark  disease  was 
present.  The  public  showed  their  active  interest  in  the  subject 
in  the  way  they  replied.  We  got  over  a  thousand  answers  to 
those  letters,  from  all  parts  of  the  State,  and  in  that  way  we  are 


159 

enabled  to  give  a  rough  map  of  the  state,  showing  where  the 
chestnut  is  found  and,  to  a  certain  degree,  where  the  chestnut 
disease  is  found. 

We  find  that  the  chestnut  belt  of  New  York  State  covers  forty- 
six  per  cent,  of  the  total  area  of  the  State  (aj)proximately  23,- 
000  s(iuare  miles),  and  on  that  area  I  think  it  is  conservative  to 
say  there  are  thirty  million  dollars  worth  of  chestnut  timber. 
The  diseased  area,  or  I  might  say  the  chestnut  belt,  includes  the 
Hudson  Valley  and  the  southern  part  of  the  western  half  of  the 
State.  The  Adirondack  region  has  no  chestnut,  and  the  same 
may  be  said  of  the  Catskill  region.  The  diseased  area  is  confined 
primarily  to  the  Hudson  Vallej^,  and  includes  one-quarter  to  one- 
third  of  the  chestnut  belt.  West  of  the  Catskills,  the  chestnut 
bark  disease  has  been  found  in  one  case  in  Tioga  County,  on 
the  Pennsylvania  line;  one  case  in  Broome  County,  near  the 
Pennsylvania  line,  and  in  two  or  three  cases,  in  Delaware 
County;  a  matter  of  from  one  to  twent}^  trees  in  a  batch.  That 
is  the  best  information  we  have  at  the  present  time. 

The  loss  due  to  the  chestnut  bark  disease  cannot  be  estimated, 
inasmucli  as  we  have  not  had  the  time  and  the  money  to  put 
men  in  the  field  in  that  portion  of  the  district.  We  have  con- 
fined our  attention  to  the  outlying  districts  wdiere  the  disease 
was  spreading,  and  I  dare  say  there  is  at  least  ten  million  dol- 
lars worth  of  timber  that  is  already  destroyed,  or  will  be  de- 
stroyed before  it  can  be  utilized.  The  problem  of  utilization  is 
a  big  one  in  New  York  State  and,  in  order  to  do  something  in 
this  way,  several  conferences  have  been  held  in  connection  witli 
the  Eastern  Foresters'  Association,  and  it  was  found  that  little 
could  be  done  to  develop  new  markets  for  the  chestnut.  The 
leather  market  and  the  tannic  acid  market  seem  to  be  flooded, 
and  in  such  a  condition  that  it  would  not  encourage  any  new 
industries  in  the  tannic  acid  business  in  NeAv  York  State,  the 
tannic  acid  plants  preferring  the  southern  chestnut  in  most 
cases  rather  than  the  New  York  chestnut.  I  do  not  think  that 
the  chestnut  is  so  much  of  a  glut  on  the  market  at  the  present 
time  that  it  is  necessary  that  New  York  State  people  should  cut 
out  their  trees  and  sell  at  a  sacrifice.    The  poles  have  been  taken 


IGO 

out  gradually,  aucl  that  market  is  uot  flooded  at  the  j)resent 
time.  There  is  also  a  good  market  for  cord  wood  in  most  portions 
of  the  State. 

I  just  want  to  say  one  other  thing  in  regard  to  Professor 
Clinton's  attitude  toward  this  question :  It  seems  to  me  that  it 
is  an  encouraging  fact,  if  the  points  he  has  brought  out  are 
found  to  be  true;  I  think  it  is  a  most  encouraging  statement; 
I  think  that  if  favorable  weather  conditions  are  going  to  lielp 
to  bring  the  chestnut  back  to  increased  vitality,  so  tliat  it  may 
be  able  to  resist  this  disease,  I  think  it  should  encourage  us  to 
eliminate  as  much  of  the  infectious  material  as  we  can  at  the 
present  time,  and  thus  aid  nature  in  anything  she  can  do  to 
restore  the  chestnut  to  vitality.  In  New  York  State  we  have 
had  several  articles  in  the  newspapers,  bringing  this  subject  be- 
fore the  people.  We  have  gone  about  the  work  of  finding  out  where 
our  chestnut  stands  are,  and  have  had  the  wood-lot  sections,  as 
I  say,  outside  of  the  previously  reported  preserved  area,  brought 
to  our  attention.  It  occurs  to  me,  who  should  get  the  credit  for 
bringing  out  these  points?  Who  should  get  the  credit  for  this 
Conference  here  to-day?  Who  should  get  the  credit  for  calling 
several  conferences  relative  to  the  utilization  of  the  chestnut, 
and  were  those  conferences  worth  .while?  It  seems  to  me  that  it 
should  be  given  to  the  men  who  were  willing  to  stake  their  scien- 
tific reputations  on  something  that  could  be  tried,  rather  than  to 
give  it  to  the  men  who  were  afraid  to  stake  their  scientific  repu- 
tations, and  who  say,  "It  cannot  be  done."     (Applause). 

THE  CHAIRMAN :  Is  there  any  inquiry  regarding  the  New 
York  situation  and  methods? 

MR.  J.  W.  FISHER,  of  Tennessee:  I  would  like  to  know 
what  per  cent,  of  old  timber,  as  against  J^oung  timber,  is  infected 
by  this  disease;  whether  or  not  the  young  timber  is  the  princi- 
pal timber  that  is  infected. 

MR.  BARRUS :  In  those  sections  of  New  York  State  where 
the  chestnut  disease  is  present,  most  of  the  marketable  timber 
has  been  cut  out,  fire  has  gone  through  the  remainder,  and,  as 
the  result,  there  is  a  great  majority  of  the  chestnut  which  is 
sprout  growth   of   small   dimensions.      I   should  estimate   that 


161 

one-fifth  of  the  chestnut  is  of  merchantable  size  and  perhaps, 
in  the  district  where  the  disease  is,  more  than  four-fifths  is  under 
merchantable  size. 

ME.  FISHER:  Does  it  not  appear  that  the  several  years  of 
scant  rainfall  which  the  whole  eastern  country  has  endured,  to- 
gether with  frequent  fires  in  this  young  timber,  is  not  this  pos- 
sibly one  of  the  greatest  sources  of  the  disease? 

MR.  BARRUS :  I  believe  that  is  a  question  touching  on  the 
technical  and  scientific  side,  and  perhaps  Professor  Clinton 

THE  CHAIRMAN :  As  we  are  confined  to  State  reports  now, 
we  will  ask  Mr.  Fisher  kindly  to  let  that  question  go  until  we  get 
into  general  discussion.    The  next  is  the  State  of  New  Jersey. 

DR.  MELVILLE  T.  COOK :  Mr.  Chairman.  I  regret  that 
the  State  Forester  of  New  Jersey  is  not  present.  I  have  been  in 
the  State  only  a  short  time,  and  so  cannot  speak  first  hand. 
However,  as  most  of  you  know,  the  State  of  New  Jersey,  being 
close  to  that  point  where  the  disease  is  supposed  to  have  origi- 
nated in  this  country,  has  suffered  probably  more  than  any  other 
State,  in  proportion  to  its  area  and  the  amount  of  standing  chest- 
nut. The  disease  has  swept  through  the  State  (excepting  the 
southern  part),  and  has  proved  extremely  destructive.  We  have 
no  special  appropriation  for  the  study  of  the  disease  or  for  fight- 
ing it,  and  I  believe  that  you  will  all  agree  with  me  that  such 
a  campaign-as  is  being  carried  on  in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania 
would  be  absolutely  impossible  in  the  State  of  New  Jersey  at  the 
present  time.  We  are,  however,  continuing  our  scientific  investi- 
gation, so  far  as  possible,  and  wherever  we  receive  inquiries  from 
farmers  who  are  timber  owners,  reporting  the  disease  present 
on  their  properties,  we  advise  them  to  turn  their  chestnut  into 
ca^h  as  quickly  as  possible,  and  to  clean  up  as  thoroughly  as  pos- 
sible. We  also  advise  persons  contemplating  planting  chestnut 
not  to  do  so.  We  also  advise  the  nurserymen  to  discontinue 
handling  chestnut  stock  at  the  present  time.  So  far  as  possible, 
we  are  stimulating  the  market  by  advising  builders  to  use  the 
chestnut  for  interior  trimminsfs. 

I  cannot  say  anything  more  in  regard  to  our  campaign  in 
New  Jersey.    However,  I  wish  to  give  just  one  or  two  observa- 

11 


162 

tions  which  I  have  made  upon  this  disease :  So  far  I  have  been 
unable  to  confirm  the  observations  of  Dr.  Clinton  in  regard  to 
the  weather  conditions.  His  observations  may  be  absolutely  cor- 
rect, so  far  as  the  State  of  Connecticut  is  concerned,  but  in  the 
territory  which  I  have  examined  it  has  been  impossible  to  con- 
firm them.  I  have  on  two  occasions,  found  the  disease  in  dense 
timber  on  the  sprouts,^  down  under  the  heavy,  large  growth,  when 
it  was  impossible  to  find  it  in  the  tops  of  the  trees  or  at  any  point 
near  the  one  on  the  ground  line.  I  do  not  know  how  much 
that  observation  will  be  worth  to  you,  but  undoubtedly  the  sur- 
rounding trees  in  the  vicinity  Avere  not  so  infected  as  to  make  it 
noticeable  in  walking  through  the  timber  and  making  careful 
observations.  The  only  points  w^here  we  could  find  the  disease 
at  all  were  close  to  the  ground,  and  the  sj)routs  there  were  badly 
infected. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  We  will  now  hear  from  the  State  of 
Pennsylvania.  We  will  call  on  Deputy  Forestry  Commissioner 
I.  C.  Williams. 

MR.  WILLIAMS :  In  speaking  for  Pennsylvania,  I  think 
probably  the  subject  has  been  well  covered  and  that  I  should 
say  little.  I  want  to  say  something,  however,  about  the  appear- 
ance of  the  blight  in  the  forest  reserves.  The  Pennsylvania  forest 
reserves  to-day  are  included  within  twenty-six  different  coun- 
ties and  aggregate  nine  hundred  and  seventy -two  thousand  acres. 
The  line  of  reserves  on  the  west  approximately  follows  the  dark 
line  on  the  map,  extending  somewhat  west  of  it  on  the  north. 
Beginning  with  Potter  county,  which  is  at  the  middle  of  the 
northern  line,  and  dropping  a  line  south westwardly  to  western 
Clearfield  and  then  southwardly  to  eastern  Westmoreland,  you 
will  include  east  of  such  a  line  all  the  forest  reserve  counties. 
The  chestnut  blight  has  appeared  in  the  forest  reserves  equally 
as  it  has  appeared  on  private  tracts.  In  the  westernmost  re- 
serves, the  foresters  and  other  officers  are  busily  at  work  seek- 
ing it  out  and  destroying  every  infected  tree  they  find.  The 
Pennsylvania  Department  of  Forestry  proposes  to  take  no 
chances  in  leaving  an  infected  tree  stand,  out  toward  the  west. 
That  tree  comes  down.  If  we  can  sell  it,  well  and  good ;  if  not, 
it  is  converted  into  ashes  to  fertilize  the  ground.  That  is  a  method 
that  I  think  we  shall  continue  to  pursue. 


163 

I  would  like  to  say  a  word  further  with  respect  to  the  cutting- 
out  method.  We  have  heard  considerable  in  this  series  of  meet- 
ings about  the  importance  of  our  doing  things.  Whenever  I 
hear  a  man  talking  about  '^impossibilities,"  then  something  be- 
gins to  boil.  I  do  not  believe  in  "impossibilities"  that  are  simply 
guessed  at.  It  was  no  impossibility  for  the  Pennsylvania  lumber- 
men to  sweep  over  this  State  from  the  Delaware  to  Ohio  and 
take  down  every  merchantable  tree  within  the  State;  and  that 
has  been  so  completely  done  that  Pennsylvania  has  figuratively 
been  combed  of  her  merchantable  forest  trees.  If  it  is  not  im- 
possible to  do  a  thing  when  there  is  a  money  reward  behind  it, 
why  is  it  impossible  to  do  it  when  there  is  simply  some  altruistic 
thing  behind  it?  This  method  of  dealing  in  impossibilities  is 
mighty  misleading  business,  and  I  want  you  to  know  that  we 
believe  it  is  so.  The  cutting-out  of  this  diseased  stuff  in  the 
forest  reserves,  then,  is  going  to  continue.  We  propose  to  find 
a  market  for  it  if  we  can ;  but  if  we  cannot,  it  is  going  to  be 
destroyed.  To  that  extent  the  Department  will  contribute  its 
small  share  to  do  what  it  can,  to  stop  the  westward  advance  of 
this  scourge. 

Let  us  not  talk  about  impossibilities  until  we  know  we  are  up 
blank  against  the  stone  wall.  You  have  well  gathered  from  the 
uncertainty  which  has  pervaded  these  meetings  with  respect  to 
methods  and  means,  that  it  ought  not  to  lie  in  the  mouth  of  any- 
body to  come  here  and  talk  about  impossibilities,  especially  with 
regard  to  things  that  are  not  half  way  investigated.  Let  us  in- 
vestigate and  work:  not. investigate  first  and  work  afterwards. 
Let  us  get  busy  all  along  the  line  and,  when  we  have  utterly  tried 
out  every  method  and  are  absolutely  and  abjectly  defeated,  then 
it  is  time  to  talk  about  impossibilities,     (Applause). 

THE  CHAIRMAN  :    Is  there  any  inquiry? 

PROFESSOR  SMITH:  I  should  like  to  repeat  the  question 
of  Mr.  J.  W.  Fisher,  because  I  believe  Mr.  Williams  is  in  posi- 
tion to  throw  some  light  on  it.  We  iiave  had  a  great  deal  of 
trouble  with  fat  lands  near  Philadelphia,  on  the  lands  of  rich 
men,  where  forest  fires  are  unknown.  What  has  been  the  testi- 
nionv  there  with  regard  to  tliis  climatic  matter? 


164 

MR.  WILLIAMS :  I  happened  to  be  in  charge  of  that  Main 
Line  investigation,  and  probably  know  something  about  it.  We 
found  there  all  conditions  of  forest  growth.  We  found  that  ma- 
ture forest  giants,  running  up  in  diameter  anywhere  from  five 
to  seven  feet,  and  we  found  the  tiny  sprout  coming  out  of  the 
stump.  We  found  the  infection  attacking  trees  of  all  sizes.  It 
seemed  not  to  prefer  any  particular  age  or  size  of  tree.  I  have 
in  mind  to-day  a  splendid  old  tree  belonging  to  a  gentleman 
living  near  Philadelphia,  that  was  worked  on  by  a  tree  doctor. 
He  punched  it  full  of  holes  with  his  climbing  spurs,  and  in  a 
few  months  afterwards  that  tree  Avas  infected  from  top  to  bottom 
in  those  punctures.  That  was  a  tree,  the  owner  told  me  for  which 
he  would  not  take  a  thousand  dollars  if  it  were  possible  to  save 
it.  In  working  on  a  tract  to  the  north  of  Philadelphia,  near 
Jenkintown,  we  found  large  timber  prevailing  in  the  area.  There 
were  some  three  hundred  and  forty  trees  in  the  tract.  The  trees 
probably  averaged  over  a  foot  in  diameter.  We  found  that  in 
the  top  of  the  largest  trees  there  was  occasionally  a  single  dead 
branch,  and  that  always,  of  course,  excited  attention;  but  the 
minute  investigation  that  was  made  of  the  tree  was  at  the  ground 
line,  about  the  trunk;  and  almost  invariably,  in  those  big  trees, 
when  we  found  any  suggestion  of  infection  in  the  top,  we  found 
pustules  nearly  at  the  ground  line,  and  it  made  no  difference 
what  the  size  of  the  tree  was.  We  likewise  found  sprouts  no 
thicker  than  a  straw  badly  infected,  and  from  that  size  up  to 
the  giant  forest  tree.  Frequently  we  found  pustules  at  the  base 
of  large  trees,  but  were  unable  to  find  anything  in  the  crown 
of  the  tree.  With  the  strongest  spyglasses  which  we  carried 
with  us,  we  could  pick  out  notliing;  but  getting  down  on  our 
knees  and  going  around  the  base  with  a  hand  magnifier,  almost 
invariably,  where  the  disease  was  in  the  neighborhood,  we  would 
find  a  pustule  or  two  on  the  base  of  the  tree,  and  of  course  that 
classed  it  as  infected.  I  take  it  that  this  disease  shows  no  prefer- 
ence in  trees,  and,  while  it  is  probably  true  that  it  will  attack 
somewhat  more  readily  the  young,  sappy  sprout  growth  and  kill 
it  much  more  quickly,  it  is  equally  certain  to  do  its  Avork  with 
the  older  trees. 

THE   CHAIEMAN:     Does   that   answer   the  question,   Mr. 
Fisher? 


165 
MR.  FISHER :    Yes,  sir. 

DR.  J.  M.  BACKENSTOE,  of  Pennsylvania :  Mr.  Chairman : 
I  would  like  to  ask  the  speaker  with  reference  to  the  treatment 
that  was  given  to  these  thousand  dollar  trees. 

MR.  WILLIAMS:  We  came  in  contact  Avith  a  good  many 
interesting  propositions  down  there,  and  we  were  visited  by  tree 
doctors  from  the  day  we  arrived  until  the  day  we  left.  When  we 
went  in  they  implored  us,  and  when  we  went  out  they  cursed 
us.  One  of  the  methods  of  treatment  was  that  they  would 
prune  off  every  infected  piece  of  bark  or  branch,  and  cover  the 
wound  with  some  dressing.  But  in  the  process  of  doing  this 
work,  they  used  telephone  linemen's  climbers.  This  they  thought 
was  the  proper  thing,  so  they  did  it.  W^e  discouraged  that  and 
finally  broke  it  up.  Vv' e  did  not  think  that  method  of  treatment 
was  good.  Then  we  were  met  v/ith  the  idea  of  throwing  some 
chemical  on  the  ground,  in  order  that  when  the  rains  would  dis- 
solve this  material,  it  would  enter  the  soil  and  be  taken  up  by 
the  roots.  Generally,  we  were  met  with  a  proposition  to  buy 
some  of  the  material  and  try  it  ourselves.  It  was  most  infre- 
quent that  we  found  these  things  were  being  tried  by  the  people 
who  recommended  them.  Then  there  was  the  idea  of  introduc- 
ing into  the  sap  of  the  tree  some  medication.  There  was  an- 
other idea,  with  respect  to  watering  the  tree.  The  plan  advo- 
cated by  gentlemen  engaged  in  the  business  was,  that  they  would 
take  a  large  chestnut  tree,  say  three  feet  in  diameter,  and  after 
some  examination  conclude,  just  empirically,  that  it  was  suffer- 
ing because  of  lack  of  water.  That  may  have  been  entirely  true ; 
but  the  method  of  treatment  was  to  run  down  a  series'  of  two-foot 
lengths  of  two-inch  gas  pipes,  or  one-inch  pipes,  as  the  case 
might  be,  at  a  short  distance  from  the  trunk  of  the  tree,  and  then 
turn  a  hose  into  the  pipes  and  moisten  the  ground.  I  believe  if 
those  pipes  had  been  put  down  at  the  proper  place,  good  results 
might  have  followed.  Water  might  have  been  introduced  into 
the  feeding  roots  of  the  tree.  But  it  is  of  little  value  to  intro- 
duce water  under  the  tree  near  the  trunk,  where  there  is  little 
absorption  from  tlie  ground.  There  were  other  methods  of  treat- 
ment advocated.  I  do  not  remember  them  all  now,  but  they 
have  been  tried  out  there  pretty    generously.     Men    who    are 


166 

owners  of  trees  of  that  character,  wishing  to  preserve  them  if 
possible,  have  paid  large  sums  of  money  to  allow  treatment  to 
be  applied,  but  I  do  not  knoAV  of  any  instance  yet  where  it  may 
be  said  that  any  particular  treatment  has  been  a  complete  suc- 
cess. Occasionally'^,  and  very  frequently  of  late,  we  have  been 
reading  about  methods  of  treatment  in  the  newspapers,  where 
men  say  they  have  just  the  thing.  For  instance,  we  had  a  letter 
the  other  day  from  a  gentleman  in  northern  Ohio.  He  said 
he  had  a  prejjaration  that  would  kill  the  chestnut  blight  and  he 
wanted  us  to  buy  it  right  off.  Now,  there  is  no  chestnut  blight 
in  Ohio,  and  I  take  it  that  this  man  had  never  seen  a  blighted 
tree  and  does  not  know  what  the  chestnut  blight  is;  yet  there  he 
has  the  remedy  all  prepared.  Much  of  this  remedial  business 
is  just  of  that  character.  I  believe  also  there  is  an  opportunity 
to  try  out  a  lot  of  remedies  and  get  some  results,  but  there  are 
no  results  of  value  to  be  had  from  jumping  at  conclusions  and 
saying  "This  thing  will  do  the  work,''  or  that  thing,  until  we 
know  it  actually  has  done  it.  Therefore,  the  Commission  is 
giving  all  reasonable  latitude  to  these  gentlemen  wiio  have  any- 
thing of  the  kind  to  offer,  and  every  opportunity  to  try  out  their 
methods,  in  the  hope  that  something  will  be  found  that  will  do 
some  good.  That  is  part  of  the  Pennsylvania  proposition,  to  let 
nothing  be  untried,  even  if  it  does  not  produce  results. 

THE  CHAIRMAN :  If  that  does  not  fully  answer  Mr.  Back- 
enstoe's  question,  we  will  ask  him  to  bring  it  up  later.  The 
question  was  with  reference  to  the  treatment  of  thousand  dollar 
trees. 

MR.  WILLIAMS :  All  trees  down  there  are  thousand  dollar 
trees. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:     Delaware. 

PROFESSOR  C.  A.  McCUE :  The  chestnut  grows  naturally 
in  the  two  northern  counties  of  Delaware.  It  is  found  in  the 
southern  county  only  here  and  there,  and  mostly  in  plantations. 
The  disease  is  common  over  the  entire  State.  While  I  do  not 
say  that  it  would  be  impossible  to  quarantine  against  this  dis- 
ease in  the  State  of  Delaware,  I  do  say  that, -considering  the 
way  we  have  the  disease  now,  it  would  not  be  a  good  proposition 
in  the  State.     I  am  not  in  favor  of  the  State  of  Delaware  ap- 


167 

propriating  any  public  money  for  methods  of  eradication  of  this 
particular  disease.  1  think  the  disease  is  scattered  too  generally 
throughout  the  State.  We  have  no  need  of  a  quarantine  line 
on  the  east,  because  we  have  the  Delaware  River  and  the  ocean, 
nor  on  the  west  because  our  friends  over  in  Maryland  already 
have  the  disease.  The  Chesapeake  Bay  does  not  seem  to  have 
stopped  it  on  the  west.  I  think  our  solution  of  the  problem, 
if  we  have  any,  lies  in  the  question  of  management,  and  I  am 
rather  loath  to  believe  that  even  the  chestnut  is  entirely  doomed 
in  the  State  of  Delaware,  even  where  the  infection  is  as  general 
as  it  is,  as  I  believe, — I  am  optimistic  in  the  matter,— that  with 
proper  management,  brought  about  with  proper  educational  pro- 
paganda, we  will  be  growing  chestnuts  in  some  manner,  a  great 
many  years  hence.  We  have  many  chestnut  plantations  in  our 
State.  We  are  not  advising  our  growers  to  plant  chestnuts  for 
nut  culture,  neither  are  Ave  advising  the  planting  of  chestnut 
trees  in  our  forests.  But  we  believe  that,  by  cutting  out  dis- 
eased trees,  especially  the  larger  trees,  as  soon  as  their  useful- 
ness passes,  and  putting  them  upon  the  market, — that  is,  when 
the  annual  increment  falls  down  below  the  amount  of  damage 
done  annually  by  the  disease,- — that  in  this  way,  the  disease  may 
be  gradually  eliminated,  to  such  an  extent,  that  in  certain  locali- 
ties, finally  all  the  diseased  chestnut  trees  will  have  been  taken 
out,  I  believe,  that  there  will  still  be  left  a  number  of  chestnut 
trees  that  have  never  taken  the  disease.  By  proper  management 
and  by  encouraging  people  to  take  out  trees  as  they  become  dis- 
eased, I  believe  that  in  years  hence,  we  will  still  find  a  great 
many  chestnut  trees  growing  in  our  Delaware  forests. 

There  is  another  point  regarding  infection,  which  I  have 
not  heard  spoken  of  here,  that  has  come  under  my  observation. 
I  have  noticed  that  where  hunters  are  allowed  in  young  coppice 
growth  that  a  great  many  of  the  young  sprouts  are  injured  by 
the  shot,  and  that  in  areas  infected  by  the  chestnut  disease  that 
every  shot  hole  offers  a  point  of  entrance  for  the  disease.  Hunters 
should  not  be  allowed  in  young  chestnut  coppice. 

Having,  as  we  do  in  Delaware,  a  Jiumber  of  chestnut  orchards, 
it  throws  a  rather  interesting  light  upon  the  question  of  drouglit 
as  a  predisposing  cause  of  the  chestnut  disease.  Those  orchards 
are  under  cultivation  the  same  as  our  apple  orchards.     They 


168 

are  not  suffering  from  drought,  neither  are  they  suffering  from 
a  scanty  food  supply.  They  are  in  good,  thrifty  condition.  We 
find  that  practically  every  chestnut  orchard  in  the  State  is  in- 
fected with  the  chestnut  disease.  In  Delaware,  at  least,  I  am 
not  inclined  to  believe  tliat  drought  plays  any  part  whatever  in 
the  chestnut  disease  problem. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Is  there  any  question? 

PROFESSOE  NOETON :  I  would  like  to  ask  if  the  blight  is 
equally  bad  on  the  Japanese  chestnuts? 

PEOFESSOE  McCUE :  It  would  be  rather  hard  to  answer 
that  question  definitely,  because  I  do  not  know  whether  we  have 
any  simon-pure  Japanese  chestnuts  in  Delaware  or  not.  We 
have  a  lot  of  varieties  called  Japanese,  but  the  probabilities  are 
they  are  natural  hj^brids  Avith  tlie  American;  yet  we  have  found 
infection  in  the  so-called  Japanese  chestnuts  the  same  as  in  the 
American. 

ME.  WILLIAMS:  What  is  Delaware  doing  to  prevent  the 
shipment  of  infected  stock  beyond  the  borders  of  the  State? 

PEOFESSOE  McCUE:  With  the  permission  of  the  Chair, 
I  will  refer  that  question  to  the  secretary  of  the  State  Board  of 
Agriculture,  Professor  Webb,  who  has  charge  of  the  nursery 
inspection  work  of  the  State. 

THE  CHAIEMAN :  Professor  Webb,  will  you  please  inform 
us  what  Delaware  is  doing  to  ]3revent  the  shipment  of  infected 
nursery  stock  beyond  the  borders  of  the  State. 

PEOFESSOE  WEBB  :  I  believe  at  the  present  time  we  have 
no  nurseries  growing  chestnut  trees,  but,  if  diseased  chestnut 
were  found  in  them,  the  trees  would  be  destroyed. 

THE  CHAIEMAN :  Maryland.  As  one  of  the  secretaries  of 
the  Conference,  we  have  present  Maryland's  State  Forester,  Mr. 
F.  W.  Besley. 

ME.  BESLEY:  As  far  as  the  chestnut  bark  disease  is  con- 
cerned, I  think  all  eyes  are  on  Pennsylvania.  Pennsylvania  has 
established,  as  it  were,  a  great  experiment  station  for  the  treat- 
ment of  the  chestnut  bark  disease,  and  we  are  all  looking  with 


m 

O 

q: 

-P" 

1— 

a. 

< 

Q 

< 

0 

1 

>- 

LU 

b. 
0 

rr 

x: 

< 

t— 

^ 

o 

z 

o 

X 

S3 

UJ 
/^ 

§ 

♦9 


2 


169 

a  great  deal  of  interest  to  the  results  Avliich  may  be  accomplished 
through  this  work.  I  came  up  here  for  the  purpose  of  listening. 
I  want  to  hear  what  has  been  done.  I  hoped  that  we  might  have 
some  definite  cases  where  the  chestnut  bark  disease  had  been 
eradicated  from  specific  spots.  It  should  be  remembered  at 
this  time  that,  Pennsylvania  has  only  taken  it  up  recently.  There 
has  been  less  than  a  year's  operation  of  the  new  law  and  of 
course,  we  cannot  expect  very  extensive  results,  but  it  seems  to 
me,  and  it  has  already  been  pointed  out  by  a  number  of  speakers, 
that  there  is  the  necessity  at  this  time  of  treating  individual 
trees  and  of  keeping  an  accurate  record  of  them,  so  that  we  will 
know  exactly  what  we  may  expect  in  the  way  of  eradicating  the 
disease.  Professor  Clinton  has  spoken  of  certain  diseased  trees 
that  were  cut  out,  and  he  mentioned  the  fact  that  the  bark  was 
left  on  the  stumps.  We  know  absolutely  that  where  the  bark  is 
left  on  the  stump  of  a  diseased  tree,  in  which  the  spores  very  na- 
turally work  down  the  tree  we  are  pretty  apt  to  find  them  around 
the  base;  so,  of  course,  we  cannot  consider  that  a  very  effective 
way  of  treating  the  tree,  or  a  fair  test  of  the  cutting-out  process. 
What  we  want  to  find  out  is  where  somebody  has  treated  a  tree, 
cut  the  tree  out,  then  destroyed  the  bark,  and  kept  a  record  of 
that  for  some  years,  two  or  three  years,  possibly,  to  see  if  there 
is  any  recurrence  of  the  infection.  I  was  talking  with  Dr.  Met- 
calf  sometime  ago  along  that  line  and  he  says  that,  in  the  vicinity 
of  Washington,  they  have  for  the  past  two  or  three  years  carried 
on  a  rather  extensive  campaign  for  the  detection  and  eradication 
of  the  disease,  and  I  think  I  am  correct  in  the  statement  that  he 
has  located  certain  spots,  cut  the  disease  out,  and  there  has  not 
been  a  recurrence  of  the  disease.  I  should  much  prefer  to  have 
that  statement  come  from  Dr.  Metcalf,  or  somebody  from  the 
Bureau  of  Plant  Industry;  but,  if  that  is  the  case,  this  Confer- 
ence ought  to  know  about  it,  because  it  seems  to  me  there  is  a 
ray  of  hope  there  that  we  may  be  able  to  combat  this  disease. 
There  is,  of  course,  as  shown  by  this  Conference,  a  general  in- 
terest in  this  bark  disease,  and  I  cannot  help  but  believe  that  a 
Conference  of  this  sort  is  going  to  lead  to  very  productive  re- 
sults. The  interest  in  Maryland  is  a  very  important  one.  We 
realize  that  it  is  necessary  for  us  to  do  something  now,  if  we  are 
going  to  do  anything  at  all.    We  find  that  the  disease  has  spread 


170 

over  the  eastern  and  northeastern  sections  of  the  State.  Per- 
haps one-fourth  of  the  State  has  been  generally  invaded.  Prob- 
ably about  five  per  cent,  of  the  chestnut  trees  in  the  area  is  lost 
up  to  the  present  time,  and  I  miay  say  this  is  based  on  an  investi- 
gation of  last  summer  to  determine  the  extent  of  the  damage 
caused  by  the  chestnut  bark  disease  in  Maryland.  I  might  say 
also  that  this  investigation  was  prompted,  at  least,  by  the  very 
excellent  example  that  we  have  in  Pennsylvania,  because  we  felt 
that  v\^e  might  use  it  as  data,  not  only  for  the  State  of  Maryland 
in  trying  to  control  the  chestnut  bark  disease,  if  it  is  possible  to 
do  so,  but  for  other  States  in  co-operation  with  the  State  of  Penn- 
sylvania. We  found  that  the  amount  of  damage  u^j  to  the  i)resent 
time  was  about  thirty  thousand  dollars,  that  is,  the  stumpage 
value  of  the  chestnut  trees,  and  in  the  area  of  infection  that  the 
stumpage  value  of  the  chestnut  was  something  like  six  hundred 
thousand  dollars.  The  disease  appears  to  be  spreading  very 
rapidly.  The  total  stumpage  value  of  all  the  chestnut  in  Mary- 
land is  something  like  two  million  dollars.  So,  if  there  is  some 
way  by  which  we  can  control  the  chestnut  bark  disease,  it  is 
going  to  mean  a  great  deal  to  the  forest  interests  of  the  State. 
What  we  propose  to  do, — and  we  have  already  started  the  ma- 
chinery going,  but  the  results  of  this  Conference  are  going  to 
determine  very  largely  the  manner  in  which  we  are  going  to 
press  that, — we  thought  it  miglit  be  possible,  by  establishing 
a  sort  of  dead  line  just  outside  tlie  area  of  infection  to  prevent 
the  spread  of  the  disease.  Now  I  do  not  know  whether  that  is 
practicable  or  not,  but  it  seemed  to  be  the  only  solution  offered 
at  the  time,  and  in  carrying  out  that  idea  we  have  introduced  a 
bill,  which  is  practically  a  copy  of  the  Pennsylvania  law,  into 
the  Legislature  of  Maryland,  now  in  session,  carryiug  a  small  ap- 
propriation for  the  purpose  of  putting  this  work  into  operatiou. 
Now  we  have  had  several  people  speak  about  the  mauagemeut 
of  the  chestnut  as  being  perhaps  the  solution  of  the  difticully. 
It  seems  to  me  that  where  a  man  has  the  chestnut  bark  disease 
in  his  woods,  it  would  be  simply  commonsense  business  policy  to 
cut  out  those  diseased  trees  and  utilize  them  wherever  possible, 
and  I  think  we  can  depend  on  the  individual  land  owner  to  do 
that.  Now  whether  it  will  be  possible  for  us  to  go  much  further 
than  that  in  recommending  the  prompt  cutting  out  and  utiliza- 


171 

tiou,  where  possible,  of  the  diseased  chestnut  trees,  I  am  uot  pre- 
pared to  say.  I  doubt  whether  it  will  be  possible  to  go  any  far- 
ther than  that,  but  it  seems  to  me,  outside  of  this  area  of  general 
infection,  if  we  can  establish  a  sort  of  quarantine  zone  beyond 
which  we  can  protect  the  rest  of  the  chestnut  trees  in  the  State, 
that  the  work  will  be  well  worth  while,  and  that  is  the  line  along 
which  we  are  proceeding  at  the  present  time.  Now  as  to  the 
question  of  management,  I  think  that  simply  by  cutting  out  dis- 
eased trees  and  by  a  coppice  management  of  the  chestnut,  I 
do  not  see  how  that  is  going  to  eliminate  the  disease,  because  we 
know  definitely  that  the  stumps  are  more  apt  to  be  diseased,  and 
this  infects  the  sprouts  as  soon  as  they  come  up.  I  have  seen 
that  time  and  time  again  over  the  State  of  Maryland,  that  those 
sprouts  become  immediately  diseased,  and  the  whole  tree  dies 
very  quickly.  What  has  been  done  has  furnished  the  basis  of 
the  proposed  work,  and  I  liope  that  we  will  be  able  to  evolve  from 
this  Conference  some  definite  programme,  which  other  States  can 
adopt  with  some  hope  of  ultimately  controlling  the  chestnut 
bark  disease.  I  realize  that  it  is  a  very  big  proposition,  and  we 
are  not  going  to  do  it  all  at  once ;  but  I  think  by  concerted  action 
and  a  definite  policy,  we  will  certainly  be  able  to  limit  the  de- 
struction by  this  disease,  whicli  has  already  done  such  an  im- 
mense amount  of  damage  in  the  northern  States.     (Applause). 

THE  CHAIRMAN:    Are  there  any  questions? 

MR.  BRAUNBERG,  of  Pennsylvania:  Are  those  approxi- 
mate figures  you  gave  of  the  damage  already  occurring  in  the 
State  of  Maryland  to  the  chestnut  trees?  You  made  an  approxi- 
mate estimate  of  the  damage  to  the  chestnut  trees,  also  an  ap- 
proximate estimate  of  the  value  of  the  chestnut  trees.  May  I 
have  those  figures? 

MR.  BESLEY:  The  presciil  damage  was  estimated  at  fifty 
thousand  dollars,  based  on  a  stumpage  l)asis,  and  the  total  stump- 
age  value  of  the  chestnut  in  Maryland  is  about  two  million  dol- 
lars. 

THE  CHAIRMAN :  Mr.  Detwiler  will  comment  on  one  point 
raised  by  Mr.  Besley. 


172 

MR.  DETWILEE :  Mr.  Besley  asked  for  some  definite  facts 
concerning  the  efficiency  of  the  cntting-out  method.  I  have 
some  facts,  which  are  not  conclusive,  but  may  be  of  interest. 
Mr.  Peirce,  Secretary  of  the  Commission,  cut  several  hundred 
trees  on  his  property,  near  Ardmore,  last  year.  The  stumps  were 
barked  to  the  ground  and  the  sprouts  came  up  abundantly. 
Two  weeks  ago  I  sent  one  of  our  fields  agents  to  investigate  thor- 
oughly, and  he  reported  being  unable  to  find  a  single  sprout  dis- 
eased, and  those  sprouts  are  now  a  year  old.  It  may  be  that 
after  two  years  they  will  be  diseased,  but  at  the  present  time 
they  are  still  sound. 

THE  CHAIRMAN :    Virginia. 

DR.  H.  S.  REED  :  Mr.  Chairman :  The  Experiment  Station 
has  studied  the  chestnut  blight  in  a  small  way,  since  we  have 
had,  up  to  the  present  time,  very  little  complaint  of  diseased 
chestnut  in  the  State.  We  have  heard,  though,  from  several 
here  at  this  meeting,  that  there  are  a  few  centres  of  infection  in 
the  State.  We  know  the  disease  is  present  just  across  the  Poto- 
mac from  Washington,  and  we  know  it  is  present  in  Bedford 
county,  at  Pontella.  We  have  reports,  however,  which  have  not 
been  fully  verified,  of  the  disease  in  Albemarle  county  and  also 
in  Henrico  county,  near  Richmond.  I  went  over  the  last  named 
territory  with  Dr.  Metcalf  last  fall,  but  we  were  unable  to  find 
the  disease  in  the  field.  We  have,  however, -in  the  State,  a  dis- 
ease wliich  has  existed  for  about  tAventy  years  and  has  caused  a 
very  considerable  destruction  of  chestnut  timber,  south  and 
east  of  Lynchburg.  I  visited  this  region  about  ten  days  ago 
and  found  there  a  fungous  disease,  of  which  we  have  not  yet  been 
able  to  determine  the  exact  nature.  Some  of  the  gentlemen  who 
are  here  have  found  the  Diaportlie  fungus  near  Lynchburg.  If 
the  Diaporthe  fungus  has  been  there  for  the  last  twenty  years, 
it  is  evident  that  it  is  acting  somewhat  differently  from  what 
it  is  act^'ng  in  the  North.  We  have  this  question  under  observa- 
tion. The  diseased  areas  are  at  present  confined  to  the  Piedmont 
district;  none  has  been  reported  from  higher  elevations  in  the 
Blue  Ridge  or  Allegheny  mountains  in  the  State.  There  is  a 
bill  before  the  Legislature  now  in  session,  asking  for  a  small  ap- 
propriation to  be  used  against  tliis  disease,  which  will  not  per- 


173 

mit  of  any  extensive  eradication,  but  we  lioi3e  to  nse  it  in  getting 
a  good  survey  of  the  damage  whicli  has  already  been  done  and  to 
get  a  basis  for  future  recommendations. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  there  any  inqiiries  regarding  the 
situation  and  methods  in  Virginia?  The  next  State  is  West  Vir- 
ginia. 

PEOF.  G IDDINGS :  I  will  make  my  remarks  brief,  because 
we  have  done  but  little  in  West  Virginia  in  regard  to  it.  So 
far  as  we  actually  know,  there  were  three  infections  in  West 
Virginia.  Those  were  scattered  through  the  State;  one  in  the 
central  part,  one  in  the  northern  part,  and  one  fairly  well  south 
in  the  State.  One  of  them  came  from  nursery  stock.  The  tree 
was  purchased  from  a  nursery,  set  out  by  a  lumber  man,  and  he 
discovered  that  there  was  something  wrong.  That  tree  has  been 
destroyed.  One  of  the  other  diseased  areas,  in  the  northern 
part  of  the  State,  we  believe  has  been  destroyed  through  lumber- 
ing operations  which  have  been  going  on  there,  as  I  understand 
the  infected  trees  could  not  be  found  last  fall.  We  undoubtedly 
have  more  of  the  disease,  especialij'^  along  the  northern  border 
and  near  the  Pennsylvania  line,  as  there  is  considerable  infection 
in  the  southwestern  portion  of  that  State.  We  hope  to  get  some 
work  done  during  the  coming  season.  I  know  that  a  number 
of  interested  parties  will  make  a  very  strong  effort  to  have  at 
least  a  small  amount  of  careful  work  done  in  West  Virginia  to 
determine  the  prevalence  of  the  disease  in  certain  sections  of  the 
State.  We  cannot  hope  to  do  much,  but  our  Legislature  will 
meet  a  year  from  now  and  if  conditions  warrant,  there  will,  I 
am  sure,  be  no  trouble  in  securing  funds  to  continue  the  work. 
The  possible  losses  in  West  Virginia  are  considerable.  I  have 
secured  several  estimates  as  to  the  chestnut  stand  in  the  State. 
One  firm  which  is  reported  as  doing  the  largest  lumbering  busi- 
ness in  the  State,  dealing  in  timber  land  and  well  acquainted 
with  the  subject,  places  the  present  stumpage  at  ten  billion  feet. 
As  proof  and  in  support  of  their  statement,  they  gave  me  reliable 
data  in  regard  to  the  chestnut  stand  in  some  regions  of  the 
State.  A  stumpage  value  of  |2.50  per  thousand,  which  they 
quoted^  would  make  twenty-five  million  dollars  for  the  chestnut 


174 

in  West  Virginia,  and  certainly  some  effort  will  be  made  to  deter- 
mine the  extent  of  infection  and  the  best  methods  of  handling 
the  disease  in  the  State. 

MR.  BESLEY,  (acting  temporarily  as  Chairman) :  Are 
there  any  questions  to  be  asked  Professor  Giddings?  The  next 
is  Ohio;  is  there  anyone  to  represent  the  State  of  Ohio?  (No  re- 
sponse). 

North  Carolina.  Is  there  anyone  to  speak  for  North  Carolina? 
(No  response). 

We  will  next  hear  from  Tennessee. 

MR.  J.  W.  FISHER:     Mr.  Chairman:     As  far  as  I  know, 
there  is  no  infection  in  Tennessee.    We  are  extremely  interested 
in  the  matter,  because  we  have  such  a  vast  area  of  chestnut  forest, 
and  a  very  large  amouut  of  it  is  the  original  forest.     We  have 
very  far-sighted  Congressmen  doAvn  our  way,  who  have  been  for- 
tifying, or  are  about  to  fortify,  us  against  such  infection,  by  hav- 
ing a  bill  passed  through  Congress  approi>riating  one  million  dol- 
lars, to  establish  forest  reserves  in  western  North  Carolina  and 
eastern  Tennessee,  known  as  the  Appalachian  Region.    Just  last 
week  the  Government  purchased  eighty-five  thousand  acres  near 
me,  in  eastern  Tennessee,  for  a  forest  reserve,  and  will  continue 
to  purchase  large  areas,  so  that  we  will  have  the  backing  of  the 
Federal  Government  in  the  lighting  of  this  disease  in  the  future. 
I  shall,  however,  call  tbe  personal  attention  of  the  Governor  to 
this  matter,  so  that  we  may  take  it  up  ourselves,  as  a  State, 
and  I  trust  that,  when  the  matter  comes  to  our  attenion  per- 
sonally, we  shall  have  some  means  that  will  help  to  battle  with 
the  disease,  if  it  should  occur.     I  am  very  much  interested  in 
listening  to  these  discussions,  and  I  think  I  shall  go  home  very 
greatly  profited.     As  I  am  a  tanner  and  an  extract  man,  I  am 
personally  and  financially  interested  in  the  prevention  of  any 
loss  of  chestnut  timber.    I  might  say  to  you,  for  your  information, 
that  a  large  number  of  the  trees  in  our  country  are  very  old. 
The  Federal   Government   inspectors   who   have  been   in  those 
forests  have  placed  the  age  of  those  trees  from  two  hundred  to 
four  hundred  years,  and  some  of  them  range  as  liigh  as  eight 
feet  in  diameter, — immense  f^rees.     The  area  is  so  large  and  the 
chestnut  timber  growing  so  thickly  that  it  affects  us,  or  would 


175 

affect  us,  vitally  in  a  number  of  directions.  The  water  supply 
or  water  sources  will  be  vitally  affected  if  this  disease  should 
get  the  better  of  us  and  cover  very  much  of  our  vast  territory. 
I  assure  you  that  none  of  3^ou  are  more  vitally  interested  in  this 
matter  than  the  people  of  Tennessee,  for  the  great  reason  that 
we  have  so  much  chestnut. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Is  there  any  inquiry  from  Tennessee? 
The  next  is  Canada,  Dr.  Gussow. 

DR.  H.  T.  GUSSOW:  I  do  not  think  I  need  to  take  up  the 
time  of  the  meeting  this  morning.  I  have  already  expressed  my 
observation  that  the  disease  is  not  present  in  Canada,  and  that 
we  have  very  few  chestnuts.  I  have  come  here  to  profit  by  your 
information,  which  I  am  grateful  to  say,  I  have  been  able  to  do. 

THE  CHAIEMAN,  (Mr.  Pearson)  :  The  Chair  committed  a 
slight  error  in  suggesting  that  President  McFarland  would  be 
available  to  make  suggestions  regarding  seeing  the  city.  He 
should  have  mentioned  Mr.  Pell,  who  was  mentioned  by  Presi- 
dent McEarland,  and  who  will  be  available  after  this  meeting. 

I  have  been  requested  to  make  the  following  announcement : 
Please  inform  this  meeting  that  a  good  photographer  will  be  at 
the  main  entrance  immediately  after  adjournment  to  take  a  group 
photograph, — at  the  main  entrance  where  the  statuary  is.  The 
size  of  this  will  be  11  x  14  and  the  price  one  dollar  per  copy 
for  those  who  desire  to  get  copies.  It  is  urged  that  each  one  go 
at  once  to  the  main  entrance,  so  as  to  be  in  this  photograph, 
whether  you  choose  to  bu}^  it  or  not. 

Deputy  Commissioner  AVilliams  will  present  a  communication 
from  the  President  of  the  United  States. 

MR.  WILLIAMS:  The  following  letter  accompanied  by  cer- 
tain documents,  has  just  been  received  by  Governor  Tener,  and 
I  am  requested  to  present  it  to  this  meeting: 

"White  House,  Washington,  February  19,  1912. 
My  dear  Governor : 

I  herewith  enclose  a  communication  from  the  Secretary  of 
the  Department  of  Agriculture,  in  which  he  gives  all  the  infor- 


17G 

mation  wliich  is  available  in  his  Department  upon  the  question 
of  the  chestnut  bark  disease  which  is  to  be  considered  in  a  pub- 
lic meeting  in  your  capital  to-morrow. 

I  hope  that  this  communication  may  contain  certain  informa- 
tion of  value  to  your  people  in  fighting  this  very  destructive 
enemy  of  one  of  our  most  beautiful  trees,  and  you  have  my  very 
earnest  sympathy  in  your  efforts  to  accomplish  the  desired  end. 

Sincerely  yours, 
(Signed)  W.  H.  TAFT." 

(Applause). 

MR.  WILLIAMS :  This  is  accompanied  by  a  letter  of  Secre- 
tary Wilson,  transmitting  the  information  requested  by  the 
President,  a  copy  of  Bulletin  No.  467,  and  a  statement  of  the 
present  status  of  the  chestnut  bark  disease,  signed  by  William 
A.  Taylor,  acting  chief  of  Bureau. 

It  was  moved  and  seconded  that  the  communication  be  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  on  Resolutions. 
The  motion  was  put  and  carried. 

The  letter  of  Secretary  Wilson,  referred  to  above  in  the  letter 
from  President  Taf t,  is  as  f olloAvs : 

"Department  of  Agriculture, 

Office  of  the  Secretary, 
Washington,  February  19,  1912. 
Dear  Mr.  President : 

Our  experts  in  the  Bureau  of  Plant  Industry  have  given  the 
chestnut  bark  disease  situation  much  attention  for  some  time 
past,  and  are  convinced  of  the  urgency  of  the  present  situation. 
They  have  prepared  the  inclosed  memorandum  which  indicates 
the  present  status  of  the  chestnut  bark  disease  and  the  import- 
ance of  prompt  action,  if  its  further  spread  is  to  be  prevented  and 
serious  loss  to  the  people  of  the  entire  Appalachian  region  is 
to  be  averted. 

Sincerely  yours, 

(Signed)     JAMES  WILSON, 

Secretary. 
To  the  President." 

The  communication  referred  to  in  Secretary  Wilson's  letter 
to  the  President,  indicating  the  present  status  of  the  chestnut 
bark  disease,  is  as  follows: 


177 

United  States  Department  of  Agriculture,  • 

Bureau  of  Plant  Industry, 
Office  of  Chief  of  Bureau. 

Washington,  D.  C,  February  19,  1912. 

MEMORANDUM  FOR  THE  SECRETARY. 

Regarding  present  status  of  chestnut  bark  disease. 

This  disease,  which  was  first  recognized  as  serious  in  the 
vicinity  of  New  York  City  in  1904,  appears  to  have  been  present 
on  Long  Island  as  early  as  1893.  Its  origin  is  unknown,  but 
there  is  some  evidence  to  indicate  that  it  was  imported  from 
the  orient  with  the  Japanese  chestnut.  In  southwestern  Con- 
necticut, southeastern  New  York  and  northeastern  New  Jersey 
a  majority  of  the  chestnut  trees  are  already  dead  from  the  bark 
disease.  Outside  of  this  area  in  western  Connecticut,  eastern  New 
York,  western  New  Jersey,  southeastern  Pennsylvania,  northern 
Delaware,  and  northeastern  Maryland  the  chestnut  trees  are 
practically  all  infected.  Outside  of  this  area  from  the  northern 
border  of  Massachusetts  and  from  Saratoga  county,  New  York, 
southwestward  to  the  western  border  of  Pennsylvania  and  the 
southern  border  of  Virginia,  scattering  areas  of  infection  are 
known  to  occur  and  may  be  expected  at  any  point.  So  far  as  is 
known  the  disease  is  limited  to  the  true  chestnuts  and  chinqua- 
pins. It  is  not  certainly  known  to  occur  on  oaks,  beeches,  horse 
chestnuts,  or  other  forest  trees. 

The  bark  disease  ajtpears  ultimately  to  exterminate  the  chest- 
nut trees  in  any  locality  which  it  infests.  The  financial  loss 
from  this  disease  in  and  about  New  York  (^ity  was  estimated 
three  years  ago  at  between  five  and  ten  million  dollars.  A  conser- 
vative estimate  made  in  1911  by  the  experts  in  the  Bureau  of 
Plant  Industry  indicates  a  loss  in  the  states  infected,  up  to  that 
time,  of  twenty-five  million  dollars.  The  heaviest  damage  thus 
far  has  been  to  chestnut  trees  in  localities  where  this  species 
is  grown  chiefly  for  ornamental  purposes,  rather  than  for  lum- 
ber. It  has  now  reached  a  point  in  its  spread  where  the  entire 
chestnut  timber  belt  of  the  United  States,  comprising  portions 

12 


178 

of  the  States  of  Maine,  New  Hampshire,  Vermont,  Massaehti- 
setts,  Khode  Island,  Connecticut,  New  York,  New,  Jersey,  Penn- 
sylvania, Delaware,  Maryland,  Virginia,  West  Virginia,  Ohio, 
Indiana,  Kentucky,  Tennessee,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina, 
Georgia,  Alabama  and  Mississippi  are  likely  to  become  involved. 
As  the  disease  is  spread  from  tree  to  tree  by  spores  of  the  fun- 
gus which  causes  it,  the  spread  is  usually  rapid  after  a  single 
tree  in  a  locality  is  infected. 

There  is  evidence  that  the  spores  are  spread  through  short  dis- 
tances by  rain ;  through  longer  distances  it  appears  possible  that 
it  is  spread  also  by  birds,  insects  and  rodents,  such  as  squirrels. 
The  disease  is  carried  bodily  for  considerable  distances  in  tan 
bark  and  in  unbarked  timber  derived  from  diseased  trees.  It 
is  also  frequently  transported  on  diseased  nursery  stock. 

No  method  of  immunizing  individual  trees  is  yet  known  and 
no  method  of  treating  or  curing  them  when  once  attacked  is 
certain  in  its  results.  This  being  the  case,  so  far  as  the  chestnut 
forests  are  concerned,  the  only  practicable  method  of  dealing 
with  the  situation  is  that  of  prompt  location  of  isolated  centers 
of  infection  in  advance  of  the  main  line  of  the  disease,  coupled 
with  the  prompt  cutting  out  and  destruction  of  such  scattered 
diseased  trees.  This  method  has  been  tested  sufficiently  to  in- 
dicate that  it  is  practicable  to  control  the  disease  where  the 
situation  is  effectively  attacked  before  a  general  infection  has 
resulted.  In  addition  to  this  it  may  be  found  necessary  to  es- 
tablish an  immune  zone  by  destroying  all  chestnut  trees,  diseased 
or  healthly,  in  a  belt  ten  to  twenty  miles  wide,  or  possibly  less, 
in  advance  of  the  main  area  of  infection,  with  a  view  to  barring 
its  progress.  A  regional  quarantine  of  chestnut  products  likely 
to  move  from  the  area  of  complete  infection  to  protected  terri- 
tory may  be  found  necessary.  This  is  now  a  subject  of  con- 
sideration in  the  investigations  that  are  under  way. 

The  disease  having  already  done  much  damage  in  eastern  Penn- 
sylvania and  northeastern  Maryland,  but  not  having  appeared 
to  a  destructive  extent  in  the  states  farther  south,  it  is  peculiarly 
important  at  this  time  that  effort  be  made  to  stay  the  progress  of 
the  disease  before  it  reaches  the  heavily  timbered  chestnut  arenas 
of  Maryland,  West  Virginia,  Virginia,  and  the  mountain  regions 
farther  south.     The  fact  that  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  has  ap- 


179 

propriated  |275,000  for  the  eradication  or  control  of  tlie  disease 
within  its  borders  is  an  indication  of  the  importance  with  which 
the  matter  is  regarded  there.  Congressional  action  with  a  view 
to  making  possible  effective  co-operative  effort  to  control  the 
disease  by  Federal  anthorities  in  co-operation  with  the  anthori- 
ties  of  the  several  states  interested,  before  it  is  spread  to  a  point 
beyond  control,  appears  to  be  of  the  utmost  importance. 

Very  truly  yours, 

(Signed)     WM.  A.  TAYLOR, 

Acting  Chief  of  Bureau. 

NOTE. — The  accompanying  document  sent  with  the  Presi- 
dent's letter,  "Farmers'  Bulletin,  No.  467,"  is  not  reprinted  here- 
in, but  may  be  obtained  without  charge  upon  request,  from  the 
United  States  Department  of  Agriculture,  Washington,  D.  C. 
This  Document  is  entitled  ''The  Control  of  the  Chestnut  Bark 
Disease,"  by  Haven  Metcalf  and  J.  Franklin  Collins.  Issued 
under  date  of  October  28,  1911. 

THE  CHAIRMAN :  Tlie  programme  now  calls  for  coming  to- 
gether at  two  o'clock,  and  the  first  paper  Avill  be  by  Dr.  Hop- 
kins, on  the  insect  question.  No  one  can  regret  more  than  the 
Chairman  that  the  general  discussion  has  been  crowded  out  this 
morning.  Would  it  seem  wise  to  begin  our  meeting  this  after- 
noon at  a  quarter  before  two,  in  order  that  we  may  have  a  little 
more  time? 

MR.  WILLIAMS  :    I  make  that  motion. 
The  motion  was  seconded  and  duly  carried. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I  am  asked  to  announce  that  the  pro- 
fessional foresters, — all  professional  foresters,  are  invited  to  meei 
in  this  room  at  1.30  P.  M.,  fifteen  minutes  before  our  meeting 
time,  for  some  general  purpose. 

MR.  WILIjIAMS  :  I  wisli  to  announce  that  the  Committee  on 
Resorutions  will  meet  in  the  House  Caucus  room,  immediately 
beneath  this  chamber,  after  adjournment,  this  morning. 

The  Chairman  announced  that  the  Convention  stood  in  re- 
cess until  1.45  P.  M. 


180 


AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

Wednesday,  February  21,  1912,  1.45  P.  M. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  meeting  will  please  be  in  order. 
We  are  to  have  first  this  afternoon,  a  paper  by  Dr.  A.  D.  Hopkins, 
who  is  in  charge  of  forest  insect  investigations.  Bureau  of  Ento- 
mology, U.  S.  Department  of  Agriculture, 

DR.  HOPKINS:  Mr.  Chairman:  I  regret  exceedingly  that 
the  insects  are  interfering  in  this  trouble,  and  making  more  of 
it.  Heaven  knows  they  are  making  enough  trouble  of  their  own 
all  over  the  country.  They  are  killing  the  merchantable  sized 
pine  in  the  Rocky  Mountains  and  on  the  Pacific  Coast  at  a 
greater  rate  than  that  by  fire  alone.  They  are  killing  the  pine 
in  the  South.  They  are  killing  the  hickory,  they  are  killing  th  > 
oak  and  the  hemlock,  and  now  they  are  interfering  in  this  dis- 
ease.    They  are  also  killing  chestnut  on  their  own  account. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  two  papers  here,  both  about  the  same 
thing.  One  is  an  abstract  which  will  take  about  ten  minutes; 
the  other  is  the  whole  paper,  which  will  take  about  half  an  hour. 
I  presume  you  would  like  to  have  the  abstract,  which  will  take 
less  time. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I  presume  it  would  be  better  to  give  us 
the  abstract,  and  then,  if  there  is  more  time  available,  let  it 
be  spent  in  general  discussion.  Will  that  meet  with  your  ap- 
proval? 

DR.  HOPKINS :    Yes ;  that  is  what  I  intended  to  do. 

Dr.  Hopkins  read  the  following  paper : 

While  the  history  of  the  discovery  of  the  chestnut  blight  dis- 
ease and  its  spread  from  a  local  to  an  interstate  problem  is  well 
known  and  much  interest  is  manifested  in  the  subject,  the  history 
of  extensive  dying  of  chestnut  from  various  other  causes  is  not 
so  well  known. 

When  we  review  the  history  of  extensive  dying  of  chestnut 
during  the  past  half  century  in  Mississippi,  Tennessee,  Georgia, 
South  Carolina,  North  Carolina  and  Virginia,  it  is  surprising 


Map  showing-  range   of   the  chestnut   tree,    and   comparative   percentage   of   the 
chestnut   bark   disease. 


181 

that  there  are  any  living  trees  left.  In  fact,  there  are  not  many 
left  in  some  sections  of  these  States  where  the  tree  was  abundant 
and  healthy  fifty  years  ago. 

It  appears  that  there  are  a  number  of  agencies  of  destruction 
other  than  this  new  chestnut  blight  disease,  and  that  these  agen- 
cies have  been  in  operation  in  the  area  affected  by  the  disease  as 
well  as  in  areas  where  this  disease  is  not  known  to  occur.  There- 
fore, they  must  be  taken  into  consideration  and  investigated 
before  the  problem  of  protecting  the  chestnut  can  be  solved. 

There  appear  to  be  other  diseases  and  we  know  that  there  are 
insects  which  have  been  directly  or  indirectly  the  cause  of  the 
death  of  a  large  percentage  of  the  chestnut  over  extensive  areas. 

One  species  of  insect,  the  two-lined  chestnut  borer,  is  perhaps 
the  most  destructive  insect  enem}^  It  has  been  investigated 
and  methods  of  controlling  it  determined  and  demonstrated, 
and  there  is  no  lack  of  published  information  on  the  subject. 

There  is  also  a  combination  of  insects  and  the  chestnut  blight 
disease.  Investigations  b}^  forest  pathologists  have  revealed  the 
fact  that  the  spores  of  the  chestnut  blight  find  their  way  into  the 
living  bark  through  some  wound  and  that  the  majority  of  such 
wounds  appear  to  be  caused  by  bark-boring  insects. 

Recent  investigations  by  forest  entomologists  tend  to  verify 
this  general  statement,  and  that  a  large  number  of  species  of 
insects  are  involved. 

Inasmuch  as  the  insects  make  a  primary  attack  and  the  dis- 
ease is  largely  dependent  upon  insects  to  continue  its  destructive 
work,  it  is  also  plain  that  we  have  an  insect  problem  of  perhaps 
equal  importance  to  that  of  the  blight  itself. 

It  is  also  plain  that  this  interrelation  of  insects  and  disease 
presents  a  new  and  complicated  problem  which  will  require  a 
great  deal  of  exact  scientific  research  by  the  forest  entomologists 
and  the  forest  pathologists  before  we  shall  be  warranted  in  ar- 
riving at  definite  conclusions,  or  in  giving  specific  advice  on 
methods  of  control  and  prevention. 

Considerable  work  has  already  been  done  on  the  general  sub- 
ject of  chestnut  insects  by  the  West  Virginia  Agricultural  Ex- 
periment Station  and  the  Bureau  of  Entomology  of  the  U.  S. 
Department  of  Agriculture  since  1893.  The  published  and  un- 
published records  of  these  studies  show  that  three  hundred  and 


182 

fifty-four  species  of  insects  were  found  to  inhabit  the  cliestnut. 
We  find  tliat  other  observers  liave  recorded  one  hundred  and 
sixty-four  species.  By  eliminating  all  duplications,  the  total 
is  four  hundred  and  seventy-two.  So  you  see  that  the  chestnut 
is  pretty  well  inhabited  by  insects.  This  is  only  a  beginning. 
There  are  many  more  insects  to  be  found  on  the  tree  and  a  great 
deal  to  be  learned  about  tJiem  as  a  basis  for  practical  conclu- 
sions and  action.  A  more  specific  and  comprehensive  study  of 
chestnut  insects  is  now  being  carried  on  under  a  special  project 
of  the  Branch  of  Forest  Insects  of  tlie  Bureau  of  Entomology. 
This  investigation  will  l)e  extended  into  all  parts  of  the  country 
where  the  cliestnut  is,  or  has  l>eeu,  an  important  forest  tree,  and 
especially  in  those  vStates  and  sections  Avhere  the  people  represent- 
ing the  private,  municipal,  and  State  ownership  manifest  a 
special  interest  in  this  phase  of  the  problem.  We  are  assured  of 
the  co-operation  of  the  Commission  and  other  State  officials  in 
the  work  carried  on  in  Pennsylvania  and  we  hope  to  have  the 
co-operation  of  other  States  in  any  work  done  within  their  boun- 
daries. 

Possibilities  of  Control. 

You  will  note  that  I  am  not  discussing  the  control  of  the  dis- 
ease, because  I  do  not  pretend  to  know  anything  about  that,  but 
that,  as  the  insects  are  related  to  the  trouble  and  the  primary 
cause  of  the  wounds,  we  must  consider  control  of  the  insects  as 
a  primary  measure. 

In  the  consideration  of  the  possibilities  of  controling  depre- 
dations by  the  insects,  it  may  be  stated  that  under  certain  con- 
ditions of  public  interest,  with  facilities  for  utilization  of  the 
affected  product,  and  with  a  knowledge  of  the  fundamental  facts 
and  principles  relating  to  the  depredators  and  their  control,  it 
is  entirely  possil)le  and  as  a  business  proposition  it  will  pa}^ 

On  the  other  hand,  it  has  been  forcibly  demonstnited  in  a 
number  of  cases  that  have  come  under  our  observation  that  any 
direct  attempt  to  combat  an  insect  depredator  without  a  knowl- 
edge of  essential  facts  and  principles  will  result  in  failure  and 
a  waste  of  energy  and  money.  It  has  been  shown  that  a  few  hun- 
dred dollars  expended  in  practical  application  after  the  essen- 
tial facts  have  been  determined  will  accomplish  more  than  many 
thousands   of  dollars  expended  without  such  knowledge.     In 


1S3 

other  words,  practical  application  must  follow  and  not  precede 
scientific  investigation  and  expert  advice,  just  as  legislation  for 
the  control  of  forest  insects  to  yield  good  results  must  follow 
and  not  precede  education  on  the  principles  and  methods  of  con- 
trol. 

The  steps  toward  the  successful  protection  of  forest  trees  from 
their  insect  enemies  are: 

1.  Investigations  to  determine  the  essential  facts  about  the 
principal  insects  which  are  capable  of  killing  the  trees. 

2.  Concentration  of  the  investigations  on  the  most  import- 
ant species  to  determine  their  seasonal  history  and  habits,  and 
the  most  economical  and  effectual  methods  of  preventing  serious 
depredations  by  them. 

3.  Dissemination  of  authoritative  information  on  the  essen- 
tial facts  and  principles  of  control  and  prevention,  by  means 
of  circulars,  press  notices,  lectures,  special  field  instructions,  and 
field  demonstrations. 

4.  Practical  ax^plication  of  tliis  information  by  the  owners 
of  affected  and  threatened  timber,  under  a  strict  adherence  to 
the  recommendations. 

I  might  pause  at  this  point,  to  make  it  clear,  that  we  are  con- 
ducting now  and  have  conducted  a  number  of  practical  demon- 
strations to  prove  that  our  recommendations  will  work,  and  we 
have  proved  it  in  a  number  of  cases.  In  one  case  last  summer, 
involving  the  cutting  of  over  twenty  thousand  trees,  over  a  very 
large  area  in  Oregon  we  demonstrated  the  practicability  of  con- 
trolling one  of  the  worst  insect  enemies  of  western  forests.  In 
one  locality  in  Montana  over  ten  thousand  trees  were  cut  by 
private  owners,  small  owners.  They  cut  the  timber  and  worked 
it  into  fuel  and  burned  it  during  the  winter  and  stopped  insect 
depredations  which  had  been  going  on  for  twenty  or  thirty  years 
and  killing  an  enormous  amonnt  of  timber.  Tlie  timber  stopped 
dying  the  next  year.  I  had  a  letter  informing  me,  just  before  I 
came  here,  that  over  one  liundred  Indians  Avere  cutting  and  bark- 
ing timber  according  to  our  recommendations  in  an  Indian  reser- 
vation in  eastern  Montana.  This  is  a  demonstration  project,  and 
the  Indians  are  so  much  interested  that  they  have  autliorized  tlie 
expenditure  of  ten  thousand  dollars,  and  they  are  cutting  the 
timber  and  barking  it  tliemselves.     This,  we  believe,  is  almost 


]84 

certain  to  be  a  success,  and  we  will  be  prouder  of  it  than  any- 
thing else  we  have  done,  because  it  shows  that,  if  the  Indians  can 
do  it,  anybody  else  can  do  it. 

Continuing  my  paper,  in  conclusion,  I  want  to  say  that  in 
our  general  investigations  and  practical  demonstrations,  we  have 
recognized  that  the  State  and  Federal  governments  can  render 
the  greatest  service  through  investigations  and  the  dissemination 
of  information  and  that  it  is  the  owner  who  should  make  the 
practical  application.  Therefore,  this  chestnut  problem  is  the 
people's  problem  and  especially  that  of  the  people  who  are  owners 
of  valuable  natural  or  cultivated  growth.  It  seems  to  me  that  the 
only  way  the  successful  protection  of  the  chestnut  resources  of 
the  country  can  be  brought  about  will  be  through  individual  and 
co-operative  action  by  the  owners.  They  are  the  ones  to  be  di- 
rectly benefited,  financially  and  otherwise.  I  am  sure  that,  as  a 
rule,  the,y  are  anxious  to  do  everything  they  can  afford  to  do, 
if  someone  will  show  them  how  and  demonstrate  to  them  that,  as 
a  business  proposition,  it  will  pay.  They  will  then  not  only  try 
to  protect  their  own  timber  but  they  will  realize  that  there  is 
a  common  interest  involved  and  will  be  impelled  to  help  their 
neighbors,  their  county,  and  their  State. 

I  have  some  photographs  here  Avhich  I  took  in  1903  in  North 
Carolina,  showing  the  extensive  dying  of  chestnut  there.  The 
chestnut,  practically  dead  as  far  as  you  could  see  in  every  direc- 
tion, the  white,  barkless  trunks  appearing  as  ghost  trees  in  the 
forest.  I  have  also  a  list  of  the  insects  found  on  chestnut,  which 
of  course  you  do  not  want  me  to  read. 

THE  CHAIRMAN :  Dr.  Hopkins  has  some  photographs  here 
illustrating  some  of  tlie  insect  pests,  and  I  am  sure  he  will  be 
glad  to  show  them  to  those  who  are  interested,  after  this  session 
is  over.  The  paper  of  Dr.  Hopkins  is  open  for  discussion.  I 
know  he  will  be  glad  to  answer  questions  that  may  arise  pertain- 
ing to  the  relation  of  the  insects  to  the  chestnut  bark  disease,  or 
any  other  questions  that  may  come  up  in  relation  thereto. 

DR.  MURRILL,  of  New  York :  I  would  like  to  ask  Dr.  Hop- 
kins how  far  these  beetles  which  attack  the  chestnut  have  been 
known  to  go  from  tree  to  tree  in  a  forest? 


185 

DR.  HOPKINS:  That  is  not  known.  We  have  no  way  of 
determining  how  far  they  will  go.  Bnt  they  have  wings  and  can 
fly.    There  is  no  reason  why  they  should  not  go  long  distances. 

DR.  REED,  of  Virginia:  I  would  like  to  ask  how  many  of 
these  insects  are  borers  in  the  chestnut  that  would  inflict  any 
wound  in  the  bark  which  would  be  large  enough  to  allow  infec- 
tion by  a  fungus? 

DR.  HOPKINS :  There  are  a  number  of  insects  which  may 
cause  wounds  which  will  give  entrance  to  the  spores.  When  the 
insects  hatch  from  the  eggs,  they  are  almost  microscopic ;  there- 
fore, the  burrows  made  going  into  the  bark  will  hardly  give  en- 
trance to  the  spores  unless  there  is  a  flow  of  sap  from  these  small 
wounds,  which  sometimes  happens.  My  observation  in  Virginia 
and  the  section  south  of  Washington  indicates  that  there  is  a 
disease,  possibly  a  bacterial  one,  which  does  get  into  these  minute 
wounds,  on  account  of  a  small  amount  of  the  sap  oozing  out, 
and  in  that  way  it  works  into  the  cambium.  Tliis  is  only  a  pos- 
sibility which  has  been  suggested  time  and  time  again  to  me  by 
my  observations ;  perhaps  it  acounts  for  the  fact  that  great  num- 
bers of  dead  trees  in  the  South,  do  not  show  any  traces  of  insects. 
The  trees  die  and  the  bark  falls  off  and  yet  they  show  no  evi- 
dence of  insects.  Of  course,  the  majority  of  dead  trees  do  show 
such  evidence.  We  have  had  a  man  down  in  North  Carolina  in 
1903-1904  studying  the  insects,  and  trying  to  determine  the  cause 
of  the  extensive  death  of  the  timber  in  that  state,  and  there  was 
no  doubt  that  a  great  many  of  the  trees  were  killed  by  insects, 
but  that  insects  were  not  the  cause  of  all  of  the  trouble. 

DR.  REED :  Is  there  any  part  of  the  tree  which  is  invariably 
attacked  by  these  insects,  or  does  it  occur  generally  on  the 
tree? 

DR.  HOPKINS  :  The  principal  point  of  attack,  the  most  vital 
part  of  a  tree,  is  the  middle  trunk.  We  have  found,  in  the  study 
of  insects  which  kill  trees,  that  they  attack  the  middle  portion 
of  the  trunk.  They  girdle  the  tree  at  that  point.  The  two- 
lined  chestnut  borer  does  this  especially.  Other  insects  attack 
all  parts  of  the  tree  including  the  leaves,  and  some  of  them  are 
associated  with  the  chestnut  blight,  as  has  been  determined  by 
Mr.  Craighead,  who  has  been  carrying  on  work  under  my  instruc- 
tion here  in  Pennsylvania. 


186 

ME.  EARKUS,  of  New  York :  I  would  like  to  ask :  Is  there 
any  ease  where  the  larva  of  the  insect  is  found  nnder  the  bark, 
and  the  mycelium  of  tlie  fungus  is  found  radiating  from  the 
burrow  of  that  insect?  I  would  like  to  know  whether  that  is 
known  to  Dr.  Hopkins,  and  whether  that  means  anything  rela- 
tive to  the  spread  of  the  disease?  Would  it  be  possible  that  the 
spores  of  the  fungus  were  deposited  at  the  same  time  the  insect 
was  deposited  there  in  the  egg,  and  a  mycelium  growth  had  gone 
on  parallel  with  the  development  of  the  larva? 

DR.  HOPKINS :  That  is  a  problem  3^et  to  be  solved.  It  is 
a  j)i'oblem  in  which  we  will  have  to  co-operate  with  the  forest 
pathologists.  We  are  studying  that  feature  of  the  problem.  We 
find  insects  undoubtedly  associated  with  the  disease.  We  find 
them  going  into  the  perfectly  healthy  bark  of  some  trees  and  we 
find  the  disease  following  them.  We  find  also  that  insects  go 
into  the  healthy  bark  or  other  trees,  and  the  disease  does  not 
follow;  so  that  it  is  one  of  the  complex  problems  to  be  worked 
out.  I  think  it  is  absolutely  necessary  to  work  out  a  few  of  these 
problems  before  we  can  do  much  towards  control.  I  think  it  will 
save  money.  We  certainly  ought  to  know  something  about  what 
we  are  doing. 

MR.  BARRUS :  A  number  of  articles  have  been  sent  in  for 
identification,  reported  as  the  work  of  insects  which  had  not 
worked  in  healthy  trees,  and  I  wondered  whether  it  was  meant 
by  that  whether  those  insects  would  work  on  a  tree  after  it  had 
lost  a  certain  degree  of  vitality,  even  before  the  tree  had  died. 

DR.  HOPKINS :  It  depends  on  the  species.  There  are  very 
few  people  who  can  recognize  the  different  species  of  insects  in 
the  larval  stage.  We  have  specialists  Avorking  on  this  now.  The 
identification  of  species  from  the  larval  stage  is  something  the 
general  entomoligist  cannot  do.  Any  assumption,  from  the  larval 
form  alone,  that  certain  insects  will  do  so  and  so,  is  mere  guess- 
work. Some  species  of  insects  will  bore  in  the  living  bark.  Others 
can  not  possibly  exist  in  the  living  bark  but  must  bore  in  the 
dying,  dead  or  decaying  bark.  There  are  many  species,  as  this 
list  shows,  over  four  hundred  and  seventy-two  species,  and  out 
of  those  there  are  only  a  very  few  which  attack  perfectly  healthy 


1S7 

trees.  So  that  the  others  live  in  various  ways.  If  a  lot  of  in- 
sects is  found  in  a  diseased  tree,  we  must  know  Avhich  of  these  are 
the  insects  that  attack  the  living  hark  and  which  come  in  after 
the  bark  begins-to  die,  or  after  it  is  dead,  and  whether  or  not  any 
of  them  can  carry  spores  after  they  transformed  into  the  adult 
stage  and  come  out.  I  doubt  whether  the  relation  of  insects  is 
as  important  a  factor  as  has  been  suggested,  because  as  a  rule 
when  insects  develop  to  the  adult  or  winged  stage,  and  emerge 
from  the  bark,  tliey  fly  away  ver}^  quickly,  as  if  to  escape  some 
enemy.  Tliey  do  not  as  a  rule  crawl  about  over  the  bark  before 
they  ily. 

ME.  W.  HOWARD  KANKIN,  of  Itliaca,  New  York :  Can  you 
tell  us  whether  in  your  estimation,  the  Leptura  species  of  borer 
precede  infections  of  the  bliglit,  or  follow  it? 

DR.  HOPKINS:  That  is  a  problem  we  are  working  on,  but 
we  are  not  ready  to  form  an  opinion  on  it.  It  will  require  a  sum- 
mer's work  before  we  can  state  definitely  just  what  relation  they 
have  to  the  disease  and  the  dying  of  trees. 

MR.  RANKIN :  I  would  also  like  to  ask  the  Doctor  if  he  is 
acquainted  with  some  chestnut  trouble  in  Otsego  county.  New 
York?  There  is  a  lot  of  chestnut  dying  in  that  locality  from 
what  I  took  to  be  insect  trouble. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr  Rankin  calls  attention  to  apparent 
losses  caused  by  insects  in  Otsego  county.  New  York 

DR.  HOPKINS :  The  matter  has  not  yet  come  to  my  atten- 
tion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN :    Are  there  furtlier  questions? 

PROFESSOR  CLINTON  :  I  would  like  to  ask  Dr.  Hopkins  if, 
during  the  past  few  years,  tlie  insect  troubles  of  trees  in  general 
have  been  on  the  increase  or  decrease,  over  the  previous  ten  or 
fifteen  years? 

DR.  HOPKINS:  I  have  been  studying  the  subject  in  rela- 
tion to  dying  timber  for  tlie  past  twenty  years,  or  since  I  started 
to  study  forest  insects,  and  the  (piestion  of  climate  has  been  one 
to  whicli  Ave  have  given  considerable  attention;  because  every 
time  trees  start  to  die  someone  comes  up  and  says  tliey  are  dying 


188 

from  drought,  or  if  it  is  a  wet  seasou  they  claim  they  are  dying 
from  wet  weather.  We  have  demonstrated  couclusively,  I  think, 
that  insect  troubles  do  not  depend  on  drought.  In  fact,  the 
most  destructive  insects  work  better  under  moist  conditions. 
So  far  as  the  relative  abundance  now  and  formerly  is  concerned, 
it  is  the  habit  of  all  destructive  insects  to  be  very  destructive  for 
a  series  of  years  and  then  practically  disappear.  This  is,  under 
natural  conditions  they  go  in  waves.  There  is  no  particular 
period,  but  whenever  the  conditions,  whatever  they  may  be,  are 
favorable  for  their  rapid  increase,  and  their  enemies  are  not 
present  in  numbers,  they  start  another  invasion  and  sometimes 
kill  off  nearly  all  their  host  trees.  The  most  striking  example 
of  the  complete  extermination  of  an  insect  throughout  a  vast 
area  was  in  1893.  In  1891  and  1892  the  pine  throughout  West 
Virginia  and  Virginia  was  dying  at  an  enormous  rate.  We 
found  that  it  was  being  killed  by  the  southern  pine  beetle,  which 
was  threatening  the  total  destruction  of  all  the  timber  in  those 
two  States,  and  did  kill  from  seventy-five  to  eighty  per  cent,  of 
the  best  merchantable  timber.  In  the  winter  of  1893,  in  January, 
it  was  twenty-five  degrees  below  zero  in  many  sections  in  this 
area.  The  next  spring  when  we  went  into  the  woods  to  continue 
our  investigations,  we  found  all  of  the  broods  of  this  beetle  dead, 
and  as  we  continued  the  investigation  we  found  them  dead  all 
over  the  area.  Since  that  time  to  the  present,  there  has  not  been 
a  single  specimen  of  that  beetle  found  in  the  area  mentioned. 
This  is  an  example  of  climatic  influence.  If  we  could  have  some- 
thing of  that  character  come  along  and  clean  out  the  chestnut 
blight,  it  w^ould  settle  all  this  trouble;  but  we  can  not  depend 
on  such  things  to  happen.  This  killing  of  the  southern  pine 
beetle  by  cold  was  due  to  the  fact  that  it  is  a  southern  insect 
which  had  worked  its  way  northward  during  mild  seasons,  so 
that  when  the  extreme  cold  came  it  was  exterminated.  This 
cold  did  not  kill  any  of  the  local  insects  that  were  working  in 
the  bark  with  it.  The  same  insect  is  now  threatening  the  de- 
struction of  the  timber  throughout  the  southern  States.  Our 
work  in  the  south  during  the  past  summer  has  led  to  the  exten- 
sive cutting  of  infested  trees  by  the  owners  in  carrying  out  our 
recommendations,  and  I  think  the  beetle  will  be  controlled. 


189 

THE  CHAIKMAN:  You  will  all  be  pleased  to  know  that 
Governor  Tener  very  willingly  accepted  an  invitation  to  come  in 
and  say  a  few  words  this  afternoon  before  our  final  adjourn- 
ment. 

This  morning,  after  considerable  labor,  we  formulated  some 
rules  to  govern  a  discussion  that  never  occurred.  It  occurs  to 
the  Chairman  that  it  might  be  well  to  open  up  the  subjects  of 
the  morning  session,  in  connection  with  the  one  subject  pre- 
sented this  afternoon,  under  the  rule  adopted  this  morning  and 
continue  along  that  line  until  the  Committee  on  Resolutions  is 
ready  to  report.  If  no  objection  to  that  proposal  is  made,  it  will 
be  understood  that  it  is  the  wish  of  the  Conference  so  to  pro- 
ceed, having  the  paper  presented  by  Dr.  Hopkins  and  the  papers 
presented  before  us  this  morning  for  discussion  on  a  three- 
minute  rule. 

DE.  MICKLEBOROUGH,  of  Brooklyn :  Mr.  Chairman  and 
Gentlemen  :  I  have  given  some  four  years  of  study,  more  or  less, 
to  this  fungous  disease  causing  the  death  of  the  chestnut  trees. 
A  great  many  of  you  have  seen  the  pamphlet  which  I  wrote  for 
the  State  of  Pennsylvania.  I  am  indebted  for  my  first  knowl- 
edge of  this  subject  to  the  gentlemen  just  in  front  of  me,  Dr. 
Murrill,  of  New  York.  My  attention  in  1907  was  called  to  it  in 
Forest  Park  in  Brooklyn.  Let  me  say  a  word  or  two  to  those 
who  are  using  the  microscope.  I  think  perhaps  one  or  two  errors 
may  have  been  stated  here,  and  I  want  to  call  attention  to  the 
spores  that  are  developed  by  this  fungus,  the  Diaporthe  para- 
sitica. 

This  fungus  produces  four  kinds  of  spores.  The  two  most 
abundant  and  generally  found  are  the  sac  spores  in  the  winter 
stage  and  those  other  spores  in  thread  masses  called  conidial 
spores,  and  which  are  present  in  the  summer  stage.  Besides  these 
there  will  be  found  in  some  specimens,  numerous  small  spores 
(or  cells)  which  are  developed  in  a  flask  or  perithecium  called 
a  spermagonium.  These  very  minute  spores  (or  cells)  of  the 
spermagonium  are  called  spermatia.  Besides  being  very  small 
they  possess  great  motility.  There  is  a  fourth  kind  also  de- 
veloped in  a  flask  or  perithecium  which  is  called  a  pycnidium. 


190 

The  pycnidial  spores  (or  sporiiles)  are  from  two  and  a  half  to 
three  times  the  length  of  the  conidial  sjjores.  The  sporules  are 
borne  on  pedicels  and  are  not  contained  in  sacs  as  are  the  winter 
spores.  A  pycnidium  may  properly  be  called  a  stylosporous 
peritliecinm.  These  four  kinds  of  spores,  vary  in  size  and  are 
of  a  different  origin.  The  condial  spores  are  the  only  kind  not 
produced  in  perithecia  or  flask-shaped  bodies.  The  conidial 
spores  are  borne  on  filiform,  simple  hyphae.  The  sac  spores 
are  called  sporidia,  the  thread  mass  are  conidia,  the  minute 
spores  (or  cells)  are  the  spcrmatia,  and  the  pycnidial  product  are 
the  sporules. 

THE  CHAIKMAN:  Doctor,  I  think  I  Avill  have  to  ask  for 
unanimous  consent,  because  we  have  now  gone  to  the  limit  of  our 
rule. 

DK.  MICKLEBOKOUGfl:  I  Avould  ask  consent  that  I  may 
be  able  to  present  a  statement  that  I  think  is  of  some  importance 
in  the  work  which  I  have  been  doing  just  lately. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Can  you  give  us  an  idea  of  tlie  time? 

DR.  MICKLEBOROUGH :  I  will  take  just  a  fcAV  minutes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Dr.  Mickleborough  asks  unanimous  con- 
sent that  he  proceed  for  a  few  minutes  to  complete  this  state- 
ment. It  seems  to  be  necessary  to  ask  that,  because  we  are  work- 
ing under  a  rule.  Is  there  objection?  If  not,  the  consent  is 
given. 

DR.  MICKLEBOROUGH :  I  will  take  up  the  other  feature. 
I  have  had  under  consideration  all  forms  of  sprays  and  cutting 
and  things  of  that  kind,  and  have  examined  the  cuttings  in  many 
parts  of  New  York  State  and  also  in  Pennsylvania.  I  want  to 
make  this  statement,  not  to  produce  any  sensation  or  create  any 
false  impression:  Within  the  last  five  months  I  have  had  as- 
sociated with  me  in  this  work  an  experienced  bacteriologist,  and 
last  Friday  I  called  upon  my  associate  and  I  asked  him  to  give 
me  the  language  that  I  might  use  as  to  what  we  had  accomplished 
up  to  this  time  in  trying  to  find  an  entirely  different  remedy  for 
the  chestnut  tree  blight.  I  will  read  you  the  words  that  he  ap- 
proved of  last  Friday ;  that  was  February  17,  1912 : 


191 

"The  work  has  advanced  sufficiently  to  state  that  temporary 
immunity  is  assured  to  a  certain  degree."  That  means  over 
certain  areas  and  over  smaller  things  Avith  which  we  have  had 
to  deal  in  the  bacteriological  laboratory.  "And  spore  develop- 
ment in  affected  areas  has  been  arrested." 

Now  we  have  started  out  largely  with  the  idea  that  dog  willl 
eat  dog  and  that  we  will  have  to  meet  this  from  the  bacteriolo- 
gical standpoint.  I  do  not  know ;  and  I  do  not  promise  success. 
We  are  going  ahead  with  this  work  and  many  experiments  will 
have  to  be  preformed  this  spring.  I  am  not  sure  that  we  are 
going  to  be  successful,  anl  I  am  not  going  to  tell  you  whether  it 
is  going  to  be  a  toxin  or  an  anti-toxin,  as  we  might  call  it,  or  a 
serum  which  can  be  used. 

ME.  STEVENS :  This  is  a  very  interesting  paper  and  we 
enjoyed  it;  but  we  have  taken  up  so  far  in  our  Conference  the 
negative  side  of  the  question  and,  with  the  limited  time  left,  I 
think  we  have  all  we  can  do  to  consider  ways  and  means  of  pro- 
cedure. I  think  it  should  be  the  sense  of  the  meeting  that  we 
should  give  the  remaining  two  hours  of  time  to  positive  work, 
in  the  procedure  of  the  work  of  this  Conference. 

DR.  MICKLEBOROUGH :  I  have  no  desire  to  prolong  this 
discussion  at  all  against  the  wish  and  the  unanimous  consent  of 
the  Conference,  and  I  am  not  wishing  to  create  a  false  impres- 
sion. What  we  may  be  able  to  produce  I  do  not  know.  I  do 
know  this,  that  it  is  something  that  ought  to  be  encouraged, 
just  as  much  as  when  the  sleeping  sickness  in  Africa  killed  a 
million  of  the  tribes  of  Africa.  The  white  man  did  not  say,  "Let 
them  die"  but  rose  up,  as  a  man,  the  rebel  in  nature,  and  sai5 
"I  will  not  die,  but  I  will  destroy  that  which  is  destroying  me,'' 
and  I  am  taking  that  position  now.  We  are  trying  to  see  if  there 
is  not  something  that  can  be  done  to  destroy  the  chestnut  tree 
blight.  T  yield  to  the  gentleman;  if  there  is  any  objection,  I  do 
not  wish  to  continue. 

THE  CHAIRMAN :  The  matter  before  us  comprises  the 
papers  of  this  morning,  with  their  various  bearings,  and  the 
paper  of  the  afternoon.     There  are  four  distinct  subjects. 

DR.  SMITH:  There  has  been  a  manifest  desire  that  all  pos- 
sible information  be  given  here  of  the  experiments  of  Dr.  Metcalfe 


192 

whose  publication  has  raised  the  hope  that  the  dead  line  is  to  be 
effective.  Possibly  Dr.  Crowell  can  tell  us  something  about  it, 
or  some  other  member  of  the  Department. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  would  be  eminently  proper  under 
the  rule  guiding  us  at  the  presene  time.  We  Avould  be  glad  to 
here  from  Dr.  Crowell  for  three  minutes,  and  extend  the  time, 
if  the  Conference  desires;  either  Dr.  Crowell  of  Professor  Col- 
lins will  speak. 

PROFESSOR  COLLINS:  Mr.  Besley  made  the  remark,  I 
do  not  remember  whether  it  was  this  morning  or  not,  that  he 
would  like  to  have  some  positive  statements.  I  am  prompted  to 
say  a  few  words  about  the  matter.  I  should  have  said  them 
before,  only  the  discussion  seemed  to  be  so  close  on  to  the  time 
limit  that  I  thought  perhaps  a  little  more  favorable  opportunity 
might  occur  later. 

In  reply,  if  we  can  regard  it  a  reply  to  the  question  of  Mr. 
Besley  and  Professor  Smith,  I  would  like  to  say  a  few  words  in 
regard  to  the  cutting-out  experiment  around  Washington.  You 
must  remember  that  in  the  Farmer's  Bulletin  which  has  been 
published,  the  statement  is  made  that  those  experiments  were 
conducted  chiefly  by  the  senior  writer,  which  is  Dr.  Metcalf. 
We  are  all  sorry  that  he  cannot  be  here  to  tell  you  more  about 
this.  Unfortunately  I  have  visited  only  a  few  of  these  places 
personally.  Here  is  a  statement,  however,  which  I  would  like 
to  read  in  connection  with  that : 

In  Farmer's  Bulletin  467,  p.  11,  we  made  the  following  state- 
ments regarding  certain  experiments  which  had  been  performed 
at  that  time  to  test  different  methods  of  controlling  the  disease 
by  cutting  out  advance  infections : 

"The  country  within  approximately  thirty-five  miles  of  Wash- 
ington, D.  C.  was  chosen  in  the  fall  of  1908  as  preliminary  ter- 
ritory in  which  to  test  this  method  of  control.  This  section  has 
since  been  gone  over  fairly  thoroughly  once  a  year.  As  will  be 
seen  by  Fig.  1,  fourteen  points  of  infection  were  located  and  the 
infected  trees  destroyed.  Most  of  this  work  was  done  by  the 
senior  writer.  The  largest  infection  was  a  group  of  nursery 
trees  that  had  been  imported  from  New  Jersey;  the  smallest,  a 
single  lesion  on  a  small  branch  of  a  large  forest  tree.     In  one 


193 

case  eleven  forest  trees  in  a  group  were  infected,  the  original 
infection  having  been  two  trees,  dating  apparently  from  as  early 
as  1907.  Up  to  the  present  time  ( Jnne,  1911)  the  disease  has  not 
reappeared  at  any  point  where  eliminated  and  the  country  with- 
in a  radius  of  approximately  thirty-five  miles  from  Washington 
is  apparently  free  from  the  bark  disaese,  although  new  infections 
must  be  looked  for  as  long  as  the  disease  remains  elsewhere 
unchecked.  It  is  therefore  believed  that  this  method  of  attack 
will  prove  equally  practicable  in  other  localities,  and  if  carried 
out  on  a  large  scale  will  result  ultimately  in  the  control  of  the 
bark  disease." 

Since  June,  two  new  points  of  infection,  dating  probably  from 
1910,  and  a  third  suspicious  point  have  been  discovered  within 
this  area.  This  was  expected,  as  above.  If  the  results  of  legis- 
lation this  winter  show  that  an  effort  will  be  made  to  control  the 
disease  in  Maryland,  Virginia,  and  the  District  of  Columbia, 
these  points  of  infection  and  any  others  that  may  be  found  will 
be  destroyed  in  the  spring.  Otherwise  the  experiment  will  be 
abandoned,  except  for  keeping  a  record  of  previous  cuttings. 

Since  Christmas  six  of  the  fourteen  points  above  referred  to 
have  been  visited.  In  one  case  where  only  diseased  limbs  were 
removed  and  the  balance  of  the  tree  left  standing,  the  tree  has 
become  infected.  This  was  expected;  we  have  always  recom- 
mended complete  destruction  of  diseased  trees.  At  two  points 
the  diseased  trees  were  cut,  but  the  stumps  left  unbarked.  This 
we  believe  to  be  bad  practice,  but  in  spite  of  this  the  stumps  are 
still  with  one  exception  unaffected.  In  the  other  three  cases 
the  trees  were  entirely  destroyed,  and  the  disease  has  not  reap- 
peared in  the  vicinity.  The  regular  inspection  of  all  fourteen 
points  will  be  made  again  in  May  and  June,  after  the  leaves  are 
out,  as  has  been  our  previous  practice. 

Only  indicative  conclusions  can  be  drawn  from  the  above  ex- 
periment until  at  least  six  more  years  have  passed.  It  should  be 
borne  in  mind  that  this  is  an  experiment,  not  a  demonstration. 
The  experiment  should  in  any  case  have  been  duplicated  in  var- 
ious parts  of  the  country.  It  is  not  too  late  to  do  this  now;  even 
in  States  where  it  is  too  late  to  attempt  general  control,  local 


13 


194 

cutting-out  experiments  can  be  made,  and  the  end  will  give  re- 
sults of  great  value,  on  account  of  the  difference  in  local  condit- 
ions, 

DE.  MURRILL,  of  New  York:  Mr.  Chairman:  I  Avish  to 
speak  just  for  a  moment  in  reply  to  the  preceding  paper,  and 
I  wish  to  speak  very  briefly  and  plainly,  as  to  why  the  chestnut 
canker  cannot  be  controlled  by  cutting-out  method  proposed: 

1.  It  is  impossible  to  locate  all  advance  infections,  these  not 
being  apparent  even  under  close  inspections. 

2.  It  is  practically  impossible  to  cut  and  burn  all  infected  trees 
after  their  discovery. 

3.  Even  if  these  trees  are  cut,  it  is  impossible  to  discover  and 
eradicate  the  numerous  infections  originating  from  millions  of 
spores  produced  on  these  trees  and  distributed  by  birds,  insects, 
squirrels,  wind,  and  rain. 

4.  Even  if  it  were  possible  to  cut  and  burn  all  affected  trees, 
for  ten  or  twenty  years  afterwards  numbers  of  sprouts  would 
grow  up  from  the  roots  of  these  trees  and  continue  to  die  from 
the  disease  and  to  spread  the  infection. 

5.  Supposing  that  it  might  be  possible  to  eradicate  all  ad- 
vance infections,  what  method  is  proposed  that  is  at  all  feasible 
for  combating  the  disease  in  its  main  line  of  advance?  All  of 
the  foresters  connected  with  the  United  States  Government  and 
the  entire  Army  of  the  United  States  would  be  utterly  powerless 
to  oppose  its  progress. 

6.  Although  the  chestnut  canker  has  been  known  and  experi- 
mented with  since  1905,  there  is  not  a  single  instance  where  an 
individual  tree  or  a  grove  of  trees  affected  by  the  disease  has 
been  saved.  If  it  is  impossible  to  combat  the  canker  under  the 
most  favorable  circumstances,  how  would  it  be  possible  to  suc- 
ceed with  an  extensive  forest?  The  published  account  of  the 
extermination  of  the  chestnut  canker  in  the  vicinity  of  Wash- 
ington, D.  C,  upon  which  experiment  the  requests  for  state 
appropriations  are  said  to  be  founded,  cannot  be  relied  upon. 
The  trees  most  conspicuously  affected  there  have  been  cut  and 
burned,  so  that  the  presence  of  the  disease  is  not  readily  appar- 
ent, but  with  each  season  additional  trees  will  be  affected  and 


195 

the  attempt  to  atay  the  disease  will  be  abondoned,  especially 
when  the  main  line  of  advance,  which  is  now  in  northern  Mary- 
land, reaches  the  Potomac  River,    (xipplanse). 

MR.  CAS  SELL,  of  Philadelphia :  I  wish  to  say  to  Dr.  Murrill 
that  I  will  be  glad  any  time  to  show  him  trees  that  have  been 
treated  for  two  years  and  are  alive  to-day  and  apparently  quite 
healthy.     (Applause). 

PROFESSOR  STEWART :  Mr.  Chairman :  I  wish  to  speak 
of  two  points  mentioned  by  Professor  Collins  in  connection  with 
the  Washington  experiment.  I  think  that  he  has  left  the  im- 
pression that  those  points  of  infection  discovered  after  June, 
1911,  could  be  regarded  as  new  infections.  Now,  one  of  them, 
which  we  examined.  Professor  Collins  says  must  have  occurred 
in  1910,  and  I  quite  agree  with  him  that  it  occurred  as  early 
as  that,  and  perhaps  earlier.  That  certainly  cannot  be  regarded 
as  a  new  infection.  Another  point:  Professor  Collins  states  that 
in  those  two  cases  Avhere  the  trees  were  cut  and  the  stumps  left 
unbarked,  that  the  disease  has  not  reappeared.  Perhaps  he  did 
not  put  it  quite  that  way ;  I  believe  he  said,  "they  are  not  now  in- 
fected." Now  on  the  30th  of  December  last,  when  we  examined 
them  (Dr.  Metcalf,  Prof.  Collins  and  others  being  present),  we 
found  the  fungus  on  the  bark  of  one  of  those  stumps,  and  also  at 
the  base  of  an  adjoining  tree,  as  stated  in  my  paper. 

MR.  I.  C.  WILLIAMS :  Mr  Chairman :  I  wish  to  direct  the 
attention  of  this  Conference  to  the  character  of  some  of  the 
scientific  investigation  that  is  going  on  with  respect  to  chestnut 
blight  disease.  I  think  we  have  a  right  to  know  Avhat  some 
scientists  are  doing,  what  they  are  saying  and  what  they  are  at- 
tempting to  do.  It  is  for  that  purpose,  therefore,  that  I  have 
brought  before  you  a  copy  of  the  report  of  the  New  York  State 
Museum,  and  I  wish  to  read  you  a  short  paragraph  therefrom. 
On  page  7  of  that  report  it  is  written  as  follows  : 

"While  there  (referring  to  a  locality  which  was  visited) 
my  attention  was  called  to  a  diseased  chestnut  tree.  It 
was  a  young  tree,  witli  sickly  looking  foliage  and  a  few  dead 
branches.  It  was  suffering  from  the  chestnut  bark  disease, 
caused  by  a  parasitic  bark  fungus.  Both  branches  and  trunk 
were  affected  by  the  fungus,  the  latter  dead  a  few  feet  above  the 


196 

gronnd.  It  was  my  first  opportunity  to  see  a  tree  affected  by 
this  disease,  about  which  much  that  appears  to  me  to  be  over- 
drawn and  needlessly  alarming  has  recently  been  published  in 
magazines  and  newspapers." 

This  is  dated  Albany,  May  15,  1911.  You  will  bear  in  mind 
that  the  writer  admits  having  seen  but  one  diseased  tree  from 
which  he  draws  that  conclusion;  and  (to  Dr.  Murrill),  if  my 
friend  will  just  bear  with  me  a  moment,  he  will  get  an  oppor- 
tunity when  I  am  through. 

THE  CETATRMAN :  The  three-minute  limit  having  expired, 
we  will  understand,  unless  there  is  objection,  that  Mr.  Williams 
has  unanimous  consent  to  continue. 

MR.  WILLIAMS :  I  hold  before  this  meeting  that  it  is  a  case 
of  ridiculous  and  absurd  foolishness  for  a  man  to  come  out  in 
a  public  print  of  that  character  and,  as  a  reputable  scientific  man, 
wishing  to  be  taken  seriously,  say  that  because  he  has  seen  one 
diseased  tree  he  regards  this  thing  as  needlessly  alarming,  and  all 
trumped  up  and  in  the  air.  If  that  is  the  kind  of  scientific  aid 
we  are  getting,  then  much  of  our  scientific  work  is  useless. 
Mucli  of  it  is  just  as  useless  as  the  conclusions  that  were  drawn 
here  yesterday  from  some  of  the  papers  read.  They  are  simply 
guesses  in  the  future,  strokes  in  the  dark ;  they  amount  to  noth- 
ing. One  man  can  guess  at  something  as  well  as  another.  If 
the  practical  men  of  America  are  to  pin  their  faith  to  guesswork 
resulting  from  the  cursory  examination  of  one  tree,  then  I  say 
it  is  pretty  nearly  time  to  call  off  the  scientists  and  let  us  look 
to  somebody  else. 

PROFESSOR   CLINTON:  The   politicians. 

MR.  WILLIAMS :  Yes,  sir,  they  will  help.  You  will  find  that 
when  a  politician  sees  something  good,  he  goes  for  it  and 
generally  gets  it.     He,  at  least,  has  courage  enough  to  try. 

In  regard  to  the  article  just  read  before  you,  I  happened  to  have 
a  copy  of  that  in  my  hand.  I  suppose  the  gentleman  who  read 
it  is  somewhat  mystified  as  to  how  I  got  it;  but  if  he  desires  to 
know,  the  information  may  be  had.  It  may  be  interesting  to 
this  meeting  to  know  that  it  was  one  of  his  pre-Convention  efforts 
in  some  way  to  cook  up  a  sentiment,  or  an  apparent  sentiment, 


197 

against  what  possibly  mii;lit  be  done  at  this  meeting,  and  was 
accompanied  by  such  a  letter  as  1  rather  expected  would  never  be 
written. 

The  first  statement  is :  "It  is  impossible  to  locate  all  advance 
infections,  these  not  being  apparent  even  under  close  inspection." 

I  deny  the  assertion.  Advance  infections  can  readily  be  found 
if  the  man  looking  for  them  knows  his  business.  In  time  every 
tree  will  develop  to  such  a  stage  in  its  infection  that  it  may 
readily  be  detected.  There  is  no  hidden  mystery  about  this 
disease.  All  you  have  to  do  is  to  know  it  and  find  it.  It  takes 
probably  repeated  searching,  but  when  you  go  out  for  a  thing 
you  search  until  you  get  it.  You  do  not  look  for  it  in  a  des- 
ultory way  and  then  say  "It  is  impossible  to  find  all  advance 
infections." 

"It  is  practically  inij)ossible  to  cut  and  burn  all  infected  trees 
after  their  discovery." 

Who  for  a  minute  will  believe^  tliat  it  is  impossible  to  burn  a 
tree  if  you  cut  it  down? 

"Even  if  these  trees  are  cut,  it  is  impossible  to  discover  and 
eradicate  the  numerous  infections  originating  from  millions  of 
spores  produced  on  these  trees  and  distributed  by  birds,  insects, 
squirrels,  wind  and  rain." 

If  we  cannot  eradicate,  we  may  check.  We  may  do  something 
that  will  be  beneficial,  and  if  it  is  impossible  to  do  as  stated  in 
paragraph  3,  then  let  us  do  the  next  best  thing.  Let  us  not 
quit  because  some  one  thinks  that  it  probably  is  impossible,  but 
let  us  go  ahead  and  do  the  best  we  can.  I  question  the  pro- 
priety of  anyone  engaged  in  work  of  this  kind*  and  in  relation  to 
this  disease  being  ready  to  give  up  after  the  first  effort. 

"Even  if  it  were  impossible  to  cut  and  burn  all  affected  trees, 
for  ten  to  twenty  years  afterwards  numbers  of  sprouts  Avoiild 
grow  up  from  the  roots  of  these  trees  and  continue  to  die  from 
the  disease  and  to  spread  the  infection." 

I  would  like  to  know  whether  that  observation  is  based  upon 
facts,  or  whether  it  is  a  mere  guess,  an  assumption.  An  incident 
was  cited  to  you  this  morning  where  a  number  of  infected  trees 
were  cut  out  of  a  grove  near  Philadelphia.  The  bark  was  care- 
fully taken  from  the  stumps,  burned,  every  infected  portion  of 
tree  that  could  be  found  was  destroyed,  and  the  sprouts  from 


198 

those  stumps  have  come  up  in  a  fine,  thrifty  maimer.  To  tlnte 
they  show  no  infection.  That  is  not  complete  evidence,  of  course, 
but  it  is  an  indication.  It  is  an  indication  that  these  stumps 
will  sprout  again  and  they  may  possibly  be  kept  free  from  infec- 
tion. How  much  easier  it  is  to  go  back  to  the  stumps  and  cut 
the  small  sprouts  than  to  search  for  the  disease  on  tall  forest 
trees.  "Supposing  that  it  might  be  possible  to  eradicate  all  ad- 
vance infections,  what  method  is  proposed  that  is  at  all  feas- 
ible for  combating  the  disease  in  its  main  line  of  advance?  All 
of  the  foresters  connected  with  the  United  States  Government 
and  the  entire  Army  of  the  United  States  would  be  utterly  power- 
less to  oppose  its  progress." 

I  would  like  to  ask  how  that  was  arrived  at.  By  what  process 
of  calculation  has  that  statement  been  derived?  I  w^onld  like  to 
ask  what  method  they  propose.  Do  they  have  a  method?  Is 
there  any  method  that  is  worth  anything  at  all?  Now  if  there 
is,  let  us  use  it.  If  there  is  not,  let  us  look  for  one.  We  are  in- 
terested in  looking  for  one.  We  claim  no  method  that  is  of  great 
virtue,  but  we  do  claim  that  we  are  interested  in  looking  for  a 
method,  and  that  is  tlie  thing  Ave  want  to  do. 

"When  an  appropriation  is  asked  for,  it  is  customary  to  point 
to  some  good  reason  for  hope  of  success  provided  the  appropria- 
tion is  obtained."  In  other  words,  you  must  solve  your  prob- 
lem before  you  get  the  money  to  solve  it.  If  that  is  the  way  the 
States  of  the  United  States  are  doing  business,  then  I  think 
they  had  better  reform  their  methods  of  business  quickly.  If 
that  is  the  way  the  scientific  men  of  the  United  States  do  their 
work,  I  think  it  is  well  for  them  to  get  wise. 

Now  Mr.  Chairman,  I  do  not  Avant  to  be  misconstrued.  I 
want  to  be  fair  to  these  gentlemen,  and  I  am  fair.  But  I  doubt 
whether  it  is  just  the  thing  for  them,  in  this  present  uncertain 
state  of  our  knowledge,  to  stand  as  they  do,  utterly  oblivious  to 
any  decent  attempt  to  do  anything,  to  relegate  that  all  to  the 
shades  and  simply  conclude,  as  a  matter  of  a  priori  inference, 
that  this  thing  cannot  be  done,  and  therefore  drop  the  whole 
business. 

I  would  like  to  raise  another  question.  I  would  like  to  ask 
the  gejitlemen  from  around  the  neijrhborhood  of  New  York  citv 


199 

whether,  if  they  had  been  feally  active  and  alert  and  on  the  firing; 
line  when  this  thing  was  discovered  in  1904,  might  they  not  have 
accomplished  some  real  thing  which  would  have  redounded  to  the 
benefit  of  the  other  States,  as  Massachusetts  has  done  in  her 
gypsy  moth  fight?  (Applause).  If  instead  of  sitting  down 
and  nursing  their  hands  in  idleness  and  allowing  this  scourge 
to  go  on,  simply  because  they  could  not  originate  sufficient  in- 
terest in  their  States,  they  had  gone  out  and  done  what  they 
could,  this  thing  would  probably  not  have  come  upon  us.  The 
assumption  is  quite  as  valid  as  many  we  have  heard  from  the 
other  side. 

Now  Mr.  Chairman,  in  work  of  this  kind  I  think  it  just  and 
right  that  those  who  are  interested  in  it  should  all  pull  together. 
If  we  do  not  agree  upon  methods,  if  we  are  not  agreed  as  to  our 
conclusions,  why  not  each  work  out  these  conclusions  for  him- 
self? Why  not  each  interested  person.  State,  or  organization, 
endeavor  to  do  what  he  or  it  can?  We  would  regard  it  as 
our  everlasting  shame  and  disgrace  if  we  had  sat  down  and  per- 
mitted this  disease  to  sweep  on  without  raising  a  hand  against 
it.  We  have  the  finest  kind  of  illustrations  of  success  in  work 
of  this  kind.  Did  the  United  States  Goverment  cease  to  pursue 
its  investigations  and  its  practical  work  in  the  eradication  of 
yellow  fever  simply  because  it  took  a  hundred  years  to  get  to 
some  tangible  result?  Finally  they  have  solved  the  yellow  fever 
problem.  They  have  done  it  with  the  aid  of  the  scientist,  and 
we  welcome  his  effort,  but  we  want  it  to  be  on  scientific  grounds. 
New  Jersey  has  been  plagued  with  mosquitoes  since  time  imme- 
morial, I  presume ;  but  have  the  citizens  of  New  Jersey  ever  failed 
to  screen  their  windows  against  mosquitoes  because  the  scientists 
of  the  State  have  not  succeeded  in  working  out  a  method  of 
eradication  that  is  effective?  There  is  a  lot  of  homely  illus- 
tration of  effort  where  Ave  are  engaged  in  doing  what  we  can  in 
an  endeavor  to  find  out  something  that  will  be  really  useful, 
tangible,  and  effective. 

That  is  the  keynote  of  our  work  liere,  I  would  like  this  Con- 
vention to  carry  away  with  it  the  idea  that  we  are  in  this  work 
just  for  what  ever  result  we  can  accomplish,  and  we  do  not  care 
in  what  direction  the  inquiry  goes.  That  makes  no  difference 
whatever.     What  do  we  care  wliether  this  fniniiis  went  on  a 


200 

foreign  trip  some  years  ago  and  then  came  back  in  disguise  and 
is  now  setting  up  business  at  the  old  stand?  The  thing  is  with 
us,  is  before  us,  and  we  want  to  deal  with  the  concrete  present. 
The  other  is  interesting  historically,  but  let  that  be  as  it  may. 
The  thing  to  do  is  to  deal  with  the  problems  that  are  with  us; 
and  when  we  have  dealt  with  them  to  the  best  of  our  knowledge 
and  then  failed,  we  have  used  our  whole  effort  and  I  think  we 
have  discharged  our  duty  to  the  public.     (Applause). 

PROFESSOE  SUEFACE:  Mr.  Chairman:  I  should  like  to 
direct  our  thoughts  to  a  subject  which  I  think  has,  in  part,  es- 
caped our  attention  in  discussing  the  excellent  paper  of  Dr. 
Hopkins.  lie  has  brought  our  attention  to  the  fact  that  there 
are  four  hundred  and  seventy-two  species  of  insects  known  to 
attack  the  chesnut  tree,  and  a  great  number  of  these  are  borers. 
He  has  brought  our  attention  to  the  fact  that  those  borers  make 
two  holes  in  the  tree,  one  as  the  young  larva  forces  its  way  in  and 
one  as  it  comes  out  as  a  mature  beetle.  It  has  been  shown  that 
the  fungus  germ  or  spore  enters  where  the  bark  is  injured  or  punc- 
tured. Thus  we  see  that  each  insect  boring  in  the  tree  makes  two 
places  of  injury  where  the  spore  germs  can  enter,  and  thus  it 
makes  a  possibility  of  damage  at  two  places,  although  as  a  rule 
they  are  not  far  apart.  Now  let  us  remember  that  the  natural 
and  chief  enemies  by  all  means  of  these  borers  are  the  wood- 
peckers, and  the  natural  enemies  of  these  four  hundred  and 
seventy-two  species  of  insects  are  the  birds  of  the  forest.  It 
has  been  said  that  the  woodpeckers  carry  the  disease  germs; 
but  let  us  not  infer  for  a  minute  that  the  woodpecker  should 
be  exterminated  for  so  doing,  for,  were  all  the  woodpeckers 
utterly  destroyed,  there  would  practically  be  just  as  mucli  dis- 
semination of  these  disease  germs  as  if  the  woodpeckers  were 
all  present.  These  germs  are  carried  readily  by  the  wind.  In 
the  same  way  the  robin,  for  example,  has  been  accused  of  spread- 
ing the  San  Jose  scale.  If  all  the  robins  were  destroyed  the  San 
Jose  scale  would  be  carried  just  as  much  as  if  the  robins  were 
present.  The  fact  that  in  passing  from  one  injured  place  to 
another  there  may  be  some  germs  on  the  bill  of  the  woodpecker 
does  not  argue  against  that  beneficial  bird  of  our  forest.  I 
wish  to  go  on  record  as"  saying  that  one  of  the  most  efficient 


201 

methods  of  fighting  this  blight  is  to  preserve  the  birds  and  par- 
ticularly the  woodpeckers,  which  destroy  these  borers.  I  have 
before  me  sections  of  branches  that  have  been  bored  by  insects 
and  woodpeckers  having  been  taken  out,  shomng  their  beneficial 
Avork.  It  appears  to  me,  then,  that  the  impression  should  be 
corrected  as  to  the  possibility  of  i)reventing  the  spread  of  the 
germs  by  destroying  woodpeckers.  Preserve  the  woodpeckers 
and  other  insectivorous  birds  and  prevent  the  spread  of  the  in- 
fection.    (Applause) 

DE.  MURRILL:  Mr.  Chairman:  I  have  been  accused  of 
using  ''pre-Convention  methods."  I  had  no  intention  whatever 
of  that  purpose.  I  am  not  a  politician  at  all.  When  I  got  back 
from  the  Pacific  Coast  I  found  there  had  been  a  Convention  or  a 
Conference,  in  Albany,  and  I  found  that  New  York  State,  my 
own  State,  had  made  certain  recommendations  for  an  appropria- 
tion. I  deemed  that  unwise,  that  is,  to  ask  for  a  large  appropria- 
tion, so  I  immediately  took  steps  to  write  to  the  Governor  and 
to  write  to  some  of  the  representatives  and  I  took  the  matter  up, 
entirely  as  a  citizen  of  New  York  State.  It  was  my  duty  to  the 
State.  Later  I  heard  something  about  an  appropriation  in  the 
Legislature  of  Virginia,  my  native  State,  and  at  once  took  the 
matter  up  with  the  Governor  of  that  State.  It  is  a  copy  of  this 
letter  which  the  speaker  before  (Mr.  Williams)  had  for  discus- 
sion. 

As  to  sitting  down  and  doing  iiothing,  for  twenty  years  I  have 
been  working  on  diseases  of  trees.  For  the  last  seven  years 
I  have  known  this  fungus.  Immediately  when  I  found  it,  when 
the  affected  trees  were  sliown  me  by  Mr.  Merkel,  I  began  the 
most  industrious  investigation  of  it,  and  I  venture  to  say  that 
many  of  those  present  have  been  guided  to  a  knowledge  of  it 
througli  m.y  extensive  correspondence  on  the  subject. 

Now  for  a  programme,  I  have  that  also.  I  do  not  believe  in 
butting  our  heads  against  a  wall  and  wasting  the  public  money 
uselessly.  I  believe  in  carrying  on  investigations  a  little  fur- 
ther and,  if  possible,  in  finding  some  rational  method,  so  that 
we  can  use  our  funds  to  much  better  advantage.  I  should  say, 
keep  in  touch  with  the  disease  in  every  stage;  survey  and  locate 
it,  but  do  not  locate  it  with  reference  to  eradication,  because  I 
deem  that  impossible.     Devote  this  year,  at  least,  to  scientific  in- 


202 

vestigation.  The  papers  of  all  the  delegates  have  referred  to 
beiug  on  the  eve  of  some  great  discovery.  Now  let  us  give  them 
another  year  and  let  the  Commission  devote  its  best  energies 
tc  scientific  investigation  along  certain  lines  which  I  have  here 
marked  out,  which  may  be  nsed  if  you  wish  them.  I  will  not  read 
them. 

(The  speaker  handed  a  paper  to  the  Chairman,  which  ap- 
pears later  on  the  record  of  proceedings). 

Let  them  be  forest  tests,  and  also  orchard  and  laboratory 
tests.  Those  forest  tests  may  embody  your  immune  zone,  your 
eradication  of  diseased  trees  in  a  section.  Let  that  be  a  scien- 
tific, thoroughly  scientific  test,  under  this  Commission,  and, 
after  the  season  is  over,  let  us  have  a  report  and  decide  what 
further  must  be  done  with  this  magnificent  appropriation  which 
the  State  of  Pennsylvania  has  so  generously  made.     (Applause). 

PEOFESSOR  RANE  :  I  simply  rise  just  to  make  this  point: 
It  seems  to  me  that  a  discussion  is  what  brings  things  out.  Now 
I  am  sure  everybody  that  is  attending  this  Convention  at  this 
time  feels  that  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  is  taking  a  splendid 
stand  in  this  work.  I  am  also  of  the  opinion  that  some  have  al- 
lowed the  little  financial  end  to  stej*  in,  thinking  perhaps  that 
the  State  of  Pennsylvania  is  throwing  away  some  money.  After 
all,  this  is  insignificant.  I  feel  that  the  responsibility  upon  a 
Commission  that  has  money  to  expend  in  this  work  is  likely  to 
bring  those  men  out,  and  put  them  in  a  position  that  we  will 
all  look  forward  to,  and  we  cannot  secure  this  unless  that  re- 
sponsibility is  placed  in  such  a  way.  I  think  that  is  the  beauty 
of  the  gypsy  moth  work  in  Massachusetts.  We  have  had  a  great 
deal  of  money.  When  it  was  placed  under  my  Department,  I 
wondered  how  in  the  world  to  spend  that  amount  of  money  and 
really  derive  the  most  benefit  from  it.  That  was  the  problem  that 
worried  us  most,  and  I  doubt  not  that  is  the  same  problem  that 
is  worrying  this  Commission  most.  I  am  sure  we  are  not  here  in 
any  way  to  criticize,  and  I  hope  at  least  we  do  not  fall  into  that 
attitude  of  mind.  I  am  inclined  to  think  that  some  have  the 
wrong  impression.  We  are  heart  and  hand  with  this  Commis- 
sion in  Pennsylvania,  and  I  believe  that  with  money  and  with 
responsibility,  they  are  likely  to  bring  things  about.  We  have 
brought  results  about  in  the  moth  work  in  my  state  in  improv- 


203 

ing  spraying  macliiuery  alone  that  I  believe  will  be  sufficient 
importance  in  the  future  to  the  Avliole  broad  United  States  to 
pay  for  the  expenditure.  Also,  no  one  could  estimate  the  value 
to  the  world  of  the  use  of  arsenate  of  lead  for  spraying  purposes, 
for  which  the  gypsy  moth  work  in  Massachusetts  is  responsible. 

Again,  another  point  that  I  wish  to  emphasize.  We  are  es- 
tablishing positions,  State  Foresters  and  other  State  positions 
along  different  lines.  I  think  that  we  want  to  get  into  the  habit 
of  having  a  well  directed  forest  policy,  so  that  the  current  may 
flow  along  well  defined  channels.  The  great  trouble  I  think, 
as  I  look  upon  these  forest  pathologists  and  entomologists  is 
that  there  are  constantly  new  outbreaks  in  new  places,  and  a 
few  good  specialists  on  each  problem  are  better  than  each  state 
working  it  out  independently. 

I  should  like  a  system,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  the  State 
foresters,  if  there  is  such  a  position  in  our  various  States,  ought 
to  be  closely  knit  together  and  tliat  this  work  should  go  along 
that  channel  and  be  well  directed,  not  only,  as  I  brought  out, 
for  these  individual  things  but  for  the  problem  as  a  whole,  so  that 
in  the  long  I'un  we  will  get  definite  results. 

ME.  STEVENS,  of  the  Lehigh  Valley  Railroad:  Mr.  Chair- 
man, it  is  noAV  three  o'clock  on  the  last  afternoon  of  this  session. 
I  came  here  for  two  purposes :  One,  to  get  additional  information 
regarding  this  fungous  pest,  and  another,  to  get  some  idea  of  how 
we  can  best  co-operate  in  combatting  it.  Now  a  large  share  of 
this  meeting  has  been  given  up  to  one  side,  the  analytical  side 
of  the  question,  and  it  seems  to  me  we  should  give  some  attention 
to  the  constructive  side.  We  are  agreed  in  some  things,  and  one 
is,  that  a  better  system  of  forestry,  carried  out  through  the  East, 
will  tend  to  control  or  help  control  this  fungous  disease,  I  think 
there  is  no  dissenting  voice  on  that  at  all.  This  has  been  the 
the  history  of  a  good  many  pests  which  Ave  have  met.  I  have  in 
mind  particularly  such  a  one  as  the  orange  pockweed.  ^. 

"The  Devil's  Paint  Brush."  AVe  may  not  have  known  how  to 
eradicate  it,  but  the  introduction  of  that  weed  has  brought  about 
a  better  rotation  of  the  crops,  which  makes  orange  pock-weed  a 
negligible  quantity.  So  it  seems  to  me  here,  if  we  could  appoint 
a  committee  or  in  some  way  formulate  a  plan  for  a  more  rational 


204 

control  of  our  forests,  we  would  be  doing  something  upon  which 
we  could  agree  and  work  together,  and  thus  not  only  control  this 
fungous  disease,  but  do  wonders  to  the  forests  of  this  section. 

THE  CHAIKMAN :  Mr.  Stevens  will  probably  be  pleased  to 
learn  that  the  Committee  on  Resolutions  will  have  something 
of  a  constructive  order  to  suggest. 

MR.  STEVENS :  Then  may  we  proceed  as  quickly  as  pos- 
sible, so  that  we  may  discuss  that? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  the  next  urder  on  the  pro- 
gramme, and  before  calling  for  a  report  by  the  Committee  on 
Resolutions,  if  you  will  permit  a  Avord  from  the  Chair,  I  will 
beg  your  indulgence.  A  few  moments  ago,  doubtless  in  a  spirit 
of  fun,  the  word  "politician"  was  introduced  into  our  discus- 
sion. Now  I  wish  to  say  that  I  have  made  careful  observations 
— as  one  may  of  the  work  in  one  State  from  another  State — 
of  the  work  that  is  being  done  in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania 
along  this  line.  Thus  far  I  have  failed  to  see  the  first  sign  of 
what  might  be  regarded  as  political  methods,  and  I  claim  to  be 
somewhat  expert  in  detecting  the  presence  of  such  methods. 
(Applause).  I  have  inquired  of  two  gentlemen  of  Pennsylvania 
who  are  well  posted,  one  of  them  being  a  member  of  the  Chest- 
nut Tree  Bliglit  Commission,  as  to  the  political  faith  of  these 
five  men,  and  I  have  been  unable  to  find  out  yet  what  their 
political  faith  is.     (Applause). 

The  members  of  the  Chestnut  Tree  Blight  Commission  of 
Pennsylvania  are  serving  without  compensation.  They  are 
men  of  large  business  interests  and  also  altruistic  interests. 
They  are  glad  to  give  their  time  to  the  subject  because  they 
lielieve  they  can  lielp  the  State  to  solve  a  great  problem,  and, 
so  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  size  up  the  situation  in  Pennsyl- 
vania, from  the  i)apers  and  the  discussions  which  have  been 
offered  here,  I  should  say  that  the  Pennsylvania  plan,  in  a  word, 
is  to  seek  the  truth  and  when  the  best  course  is  found,  then  to 
follow  that  course.  What  else  can  we  consider  to  be  the  policy 
in  this  State?  Rememl>er  that  the  Legislature  of  Pennsylvania 
has  appropriated  two  hundred  and  seventy-five  thousand  dol- 
lars, and  we  heard  yesterday  that  only  twenty  thousand  dollars 


205 

lias  been  expended.  Tliat  money  is  being  nsed,  it  appears  to 
me,  to  determine  which  of  varions  methods  is  the  best,  and  the 
very  fact  that  such  a  large  balance  of  the  money  is  still  held  in  re- 
serve is  the  strongest  proof  that  the  authorities  of  this  State 
are  waiting  until  they  are  fully  satistiinl  as  to  wliich  is  the  best 
course  to  pursue.  It  seems  to  me,  gentlemen,  that  when  we 
say  there  is  danger  of  wasting  public  money  uselessly  in  con- 
nection with  the  work  which  has  been  reported  here,  we  are 
attacking  a  phantom  and,  as  I  think  there  is  some  little  danger 
of  the  wrong  impression  getting  out  from  this  meeting,  I  desire 
to  make  these  remarks  to  assist  in  clearing  up  the  situation. 
Good  work  is  being  done  in  this  State  and  in  other  States. 
Here  the  problem  is  perhaps  greater  than  in  any  other  State, 
and  here  the  State  has  made  magnificent  provision  for  both 
studying  the  problem  and  carrying  out  effective  measures. 
(Applause). 

DE.  MUERILL:  I  just  want  to  concur  heartily  in  every- 
thing the  Chairman  has  said,  and  entirely  disclaim  any  refer- 
ence to  the  Commission  in  any  way  or  any  shape  that  the  Penn- 
sylvania State  Legislature  has  so  generously  provided  for.  I 
just  wanted,  when  called  a  politician,  by  using  pre-Convention 
methods,  to  disillusionize  you  of  that  statement. 

PROFESSOE  CLINTON:  I  used  that  word  "politician." 
Why  did  I  use  that  word  "politician?"  Not  because  he  is  a 
Democrat  or  a  Eepublican  or  anything  of  that  sort — I  do  not 
care  what  his  politics  are — but  for  this  reason :  The  convention 
at  Albany  and  the  convention  here,  to  my  mind,  is  called  largely 
for  a  moral  backing  for  this  Chestnut  Blight  Commission  in 
Pennsylvania.  They  want  that  backing  and  they  are  going  to 
get  it,  and  I  am  not  going  to  object  to  it.  You  can  pass  any 
resolution  you  want,  and  I  will  not  object  to  it.  I  came  down 
here  to  present  facts  as  I  know  them  and  to  give  them  to  you, 
and  the  moment  Mr.  Williams  is  speaking,  he  is  trying  to  throw 
slurs  at  science,  and  especially  at  science  outside  of  Pennsyl- 
vania. He  attacked  Professor  Peck,  and  Professor  Peck  at 
Albany  Avas  the  one  man  that — not  the  one  man,  but  lie  was  a 
man — that  said  lie  was  in  favor  of  their  work  in  fighting  the 
chestnut  blight.     He  quotes  him  to  disparage  him,  and  he  is  the 


20(; 

man  that  is  backing  up  tlieir  work.  Trofessor  Peck  is  a  good 
scientist  in  his  way.  There  are  a  lot  of  good  scientists  that  are 
doing  good  work  outside  of  this  State,  as  well  as  in  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN :  We  will  now  proceed  to  hear  the  report 
of  the  Committee  on  Resolutions. 

MR.  WILLIAMS :  I  would  like  to  preface  the  report  by  say- 
ing that  I  have  no  intention  of  disparaging  any  man. 

What  I  said  was  not  with  that  intention  in  mind,  but  to  call 
attention  to  what  I  claim  are  inadequate  methods,  methods  not 
well  thought  out.  I  have  no  quarrel  with  any  man  whatever. 
I  admire  a  good,  lusty  antagonist,  and  I  respect  his  opinion.  I 
am  also  most  profoundly  grateful  that  we  have  had  an  explana- 
tion from  our  good  friend,  Dr.  Murrill,  as  to  just  what  his 
Xjrogramme  is.  We  have  wondered  a  long  time  what  it  might 
be  and  we  are  in  the  dark  no  longer,  now  that  he  has  made  the 
explanation ;  and  we  are  glad  for  it. 

In  presenting  the  resolutions  which  have  been  drafted  by  your 
Committee,  appointed  for  that  purpose,  and  as  the  Chairman 
of  the  Committee,  it  becomes  my  duty  at  their  direction  to  report 
as  follows: 

WHEREAS,  This  Conference  recognizes  the  great  importance 
of  the  chestnut  tree  as  one  of  our  most  valuable  timber  assets, 
having  an  estimated  value  of  not  less  than  |400,000,000 ;  and 

WHEREAS,  A  most  virulent  fungous  disease  has  made  its 
appearance  in  wide  sections  of  the  chestnut  timber  region,  and 
already  many  millions  of  dollars  of  damage  have  been  sustained, 
and  the  total  extinction  of  the  chestnut  tree  is  threatened  by 
the  rapid  spread  of  this  disease;  and 

WHEREAS,  We  recognize  the  importance  of  prompt  action; 
therefore,  be  it 

Resolved,  That  the  thanks  of  this  Conference  are  tendered  to 
Governor  Tener  for  calling  it,  and  for  the  courtesies  he  has 
shown. 

That  we  appreciate  the  interest  of  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  as  evidenced  by  his  communication  to  Governor 
Tener,  showing,  as  it  does,  that  the  head  of  the  National  Gov- 
ernment is  not  unmindful  of  the  great  danger  presented  by  the 
Chestnut  Blight  problem. 


207 

That  the  Commission  appointed  by  the  Governor  of  Penn- 
sylvania be  commended  for  the  earnestness  and  diligence  they 
have  shown  in  the  conduct  of  their  work. 

That  we  urge  the  National  Government,  the  States,  and  the 
Dominion  of  Canada  to  follow  the  example  of  Pennsylvania, 
which  is  analogous  to  that  of  Massachusetts  in  starting  the  fight 
against  the  gypsy  moth,  and  appropriate  an  amount  sufficient 
to  enable  their  proper  authorities  to  cope  with  the  disease 
Avhere  practicable. 

That  we  favor  the  bill  now  before  Congress  appropriating 
180,000  for  the  use  of  the  United  States  Department  of  Agricul- 
ture in  Chestnut  Bark  Disease  work,  and  urge  all  States  to  use 
every  means  possible  to  aid  in  having  this  bill  become  a  law  at 
the  earliest  moment. 

That  we  believe  trained  and  experienced  men  should  be  em- 
ployed in  the  field  and  laboratory  to  study  the  disease  in  all  its 
phases. 

That  we  believe  definite  boundaries  should  be  established 
where  advisable,  in  each  State,  beyond  which  limits  an  earnest 
endeavor  should  be  made  to  stamp  out  the  disease. 

That  we  believe  an  efiicient  and  strong  quarantine  should  be 
maintained;  and  that  it  should  be  the  earnest  effort  of  every 
State,  the  Federal  Government,  and  the  Dominion  of  Canada 
to  prevent  the  spread  of  the  disease  within  and  beyond  their 
borders.  In  accord  with  this  thought  we  strongly  commend 
the  efforts  being  made  to  pass  the  Simmons  bill  now  before 
Congress. 

That  we  believe  strong  efforts  should  be  made  in  all  States 
to  stimulate  the  utilization  of  chestnut  products,  and  in  order 
to  do  so,  we  recommend  that  the  Interstate  Commerce  Commis- 
sion permit  railroads  and  other  transportation  companies  to 
name  low  freight  rates  so  that  chestnut  products  not  liable  to 
spread  the  disease  may  be  properly  distributed. 

That  we  recommend  the  National  Government,  each  State, 
and  the  Dominion  of  Canada  to  publish  practical,  concise,  and 
well  illustrated  bulletins  for  educating  owners  of  chestnut 
trees. 


208 

That  we  believe  further  meetings  on  the  line  of  this  Confer- 
ence advisable  and  we  hope  the  Pennsylvania  Commission  will 
arrange  for  similar  meetings. 

That  we  thank  the  State  of  Pennsylvania  for  its  intention  to 
publish  immediately  the  proceedings  of  this  Conference. 

That  copies  of  these  resolutions  be  forwarded  to  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States,  to  the  Governor  of  every  State,  to  the 
Governor  General  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada,  and  the  members 
of  the  Federal  and  State  Legislatures,  with  the  request  that 
they  do  all  in  their  power  to  aid  in  checking  the  ravages  of 
this  dread  disease. 

I  respectfully  move  the  adoption  of  the  resolutions. 

Seconded  by  Dr.  J.  Russell  Smith. 

THE  CHAIRMAN :     Are  there  any  remarks? 

DR.  MURRILL:  Possibly  I  have  taken  too  much  of  your 
time,  but  I  have  a  message  to  these  delegates  of  the  other  States, 
and  I  feel  sure  that  they  are  willing  to  listen  to  me  for  two 
minutes.  The  question  is,  what  will  you  say  to  your  States 
when  you  return?  What  programme  will  you  recommend  in 
your  States?  First:  Survey  to  keep  in  touch  with  the  progress 
of  the  disease,  so  that  you  may  be  able  to  acquaint  timber 
owners  just  when  to  cut  and  utilize  their  timber  to  the  greatest 
advantage.  The  State  should  have  this  knowledge.  'Then 
also  pay  heed  to  science  and  further  investigation. 

THE  CHAIRMAN :  What  you  are  giving  is  undoubtedly  of 
great  value,  but  it  occurs  to  the  Chair  that  it  is  not  directly  in 
line  with  these  resolutions,  and  the  Chair  would  ask  if  you 
would  not  be  willing  to  bring  it  up  after  we  have  acted  on  the 
resolutions,  unless  you  have  something  in  mind  further  than 
has  been  developed.  Is  there  any  discussion  of  these  resolu- 
tions? 

The  motion  to  adopt  the  resolutions  was  put. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  resolutions  seem  to  have  passed. 
They  have  passed. 

DR.  J.  W.  HARSHBERGER,  of  Philadelphia:  Mr.  Chair- 
man: Just  one  suggestion  that  I  want  to  make  that  has  oc- 
curred to  me  during  the  proceedings,  that  I  think  is  in  line  with 


209 

suggestions  looking  toward  some  practical  outcome  of  these 
meetings.  We,  as  wise  men,  should  provide  for  any  contingency 
that  may  arise  in  future  years.  If  the  chestnut  tree  is  doomed, 
then  the  fungus  which  attacks  the  chestnut  ti'ee  is  doomed  with 
it.  My  suggestion  is  this:  That  the  Chestnut  Blight  Commis- 
sion send  to  some  out-of-the-way  part  of  the  world,  where  the 
chestnut  tree  will  grow,  nuts  which  have  been  thoroughly  steri- 
lized, with  a  suggestion  that  these  nuts  be  grown  under  the 
care  of  some  forester;  you  might  say  in  southern  Germany,  or 
eastern  Germany,  wherever  they  think  proper,  in  case  that  the 
American  chestnut  tree  is  exterminated  by  the  chestnut  blight 
in  America;  so  that  we  can  draw  upon  that  supply  to  re-forest 
our  hillsides  and  our  slopes  with  our  native  chestnut  tree.  Just 
as  the  man  in  the  western  states  provides  his  shelter  against 
the  cyclones,  so  we  should  provide  a  means  of  re-stocking  our 
forests  with  the  chestnut  tree,  by  sending  these  chestnuts  to 
some  out  of  the  way  part  of  the  world,  which  is  immune,  or 
where  the  chestnut  blight  disease  will  practically  be  cut  off  from 
reaching  the  chestnut  trees.  That  is  merely  a  suggestion,  in 
line  with  future  oijerations  connected  witli  this  bliglit  disease. 

THE  CHAIKMAN:  The  Chair  should  have  extended  an 
opportunity  to  Professor  Murrill  at  once,  after  passing  the  reso- 
lutions, for  his  statement. 

DE.  MUEEILL :  Just  a  minute,  and  I  will  feel  that  my  duty 
will  have  been  done:  The  State's  programme,  then,  would  be, 
first,  to  survey,  to  locate,  and  keep  in  touch  with  the  progress 
of  the  disease,  not  a  rigid  inspection,  but  such  an  inspection  as 
the  State  Forester  and  State  Pathologist  could  take  charge  of, 
possibly  with  a  slight  appropriation.  Second,  await  results  of 
scientific  investigation  for  one  year  at  least.  We  are  having  a 
magnificent  experiment  here,  one  we  are  glad  to  have  made 
along  scientific  lines,  and  under  the  leadership  of  a  Commission 
above  reproach  in  every  way.  Now,  can  we  not  wait  a  year 
and  continue  our  experiments  and  then  act  upon  the  evidence 
that  we  get  from  this  year's  work? 

Just  a  word  to  timber  owners:  Forest  management  is  not 
a  cure  for  the  chestnut  blight.  The  cliestuut  blight  is  a  good 
feeder.  The  bettor  the  chestnut  tree,  the  better  it  grows  on  it. 
14 


210 

It  is  a  mistake  to  sa}^  that  forest  management  will  eradicate 
bliglit.  It  will  eradicate  most  other  diseases,  insects,  and  so 
forth,  but  it  does  not  affect  the  blight. 

Utilization  is  the  real  issue;  the  practical  nse  of  the  lumber, 
and  that  is  in  the  hands  of  those  who  own  chestnut  timber.  The 
X>resent  is  yours.  You  have  the  chestnut  timber  as  it  is;  tomor- 
row, next  generation,  you  may  have  it  not.  Be  business  like  arid 
stand  for  3'our  own  rights.  The  opinion  of  one  man  may  be 
worth  a  thousand  times  the  opinion  of  another.  You  see  that 
in  every  walk  of  life.  Take  the  opinion  of  hardheaded,  scien- 
tific men,  who  know  about  this  trouble,  just  as  you  would  the 
opinions  of  hardheaded  business  men.  I  thank  you  for  your  at 
tention.     (Applause). 

THE  CHAIRMAN :  If  there  is  no  objection,  a  statement 
prepared  by  Dr.  Murrill  upon  "Questions  for  Scientific  Inves- 
tigation,'" handed  in  to  the  desk  a  few  minutes  ago,  will  be 
including  in  the  proceedings,  together  with  his  personal  views. 

The  paper  submitted  is  a  follows: 

QUESTIONS  FOR  SCIENTIFIC  INVESTIGATION. 

1.  The  viabilit}^  of  the  spores,  both  summer  and  winter  forms. 

2.  The  vitality  of  the  mycelium  in  the  bark  and  wood. 

3.  The  vitality  of  sprouts  and  their  bearings  on  the  ques- 
tion. 

4.  The  food  of  the  fungus;  the  decomposition  of  tannin  by 
ferments. 

5.  Distribution.  A  large  subject,  involving  experiments  and 
observations  over  wide  areas  and  dealing  with  winds,  rain, 
insects,  birds  and  their  migration,  squirrels,  the  transportation 
of  wood,  railway  ties;  rate  and  direction  of  distribution;  nur- 
sery stock;  trees  in  foreign  countries;  effects  of  coppicing. 

6.  Origin.  Nothing  is  known  at  present.  Is  it  native  or  for- 
eign? Why  was  it  unknown  until  recently,  and  then  why  so 
violent? 

7.  Will  it  attack  other  trees  besides  species  of  chestnut? 
Much  depends  on  this.  Trees  nearest  the  chestnut  should  be 
used  for  experiment. 


211 

8.  What  is  the  future  of  the  disease?  Will  it  run  its  course 
and  disappear?  Will  it  become  less  virulent?  Will  resistant 
varieties  appear?  Can  such  varieties  be  made  b^^  selection,  hy- 
bridization, etc.?  Can  chestnuts  be  grown  with  safet}^  beyond 
the  Mississippi  river?  How  long  after  death  of  all  our  trees, 
may  chestnuts  be  again  planted  with  safety? 

9.  Can  we  expect  natural  enemies  to  arise?  If  it  were  an 
insect  disease,  this  might  be  looked  for  with  more  hope. 

10.  Can  a  method  of  control  be  discovered  by  further  scien- 
tific research?  Most  remedies  suggested  hj  unscientific  persons 
are  known  at  once  to  be  valueless  and  need  not  be  tried.  One 
thing  is  certain,  the  more  one  knows  about  a  disease,  the  more 
liable  one  is  to  discover  a  remedy.  If  none  is  possible,  the 
sooner  this  fact  is  known,  the  better  for  all  concerned. 

THE  CHAIEMAN :  It  has  been  suggested  to  the  Chair  from 
two  directions  that,  as  we  have  in  this  audience  a  number  of 
men  of  large  commercial  interests,  the  opportunity  should  be 
extended  to  tliem  to  make  remarks.  The  Cliair  is  pleased  to 
accept  that  suggestion.     Mr,  Thalheimer. 

ME.  THALHEIMEK,  of  Eeading :  Mr.  Chairman :  In  Penn- 
sylvania, in  those  counties  that  I  know,  most  of  the  farmers 
have  five,  ten,  and  some  of  them  fifteen  acres  of  timber  land  that 
has  come  away  back  from  their  forefathers,  and  I  think  it  would 
be  proper  for  this  Commission  to  get  the  names  of  those  farmers, 
or  their  representatives,  and  keep  them  posted  on  how  to  take 
care  of  their  timber  and  caution  them  of  the  danger  they  are  in 
of  losing  it,  and  let  them  assist  you  in  looking  after  it.  Attract 
their  attention,  and  you  will  get  many  good  points  for  this  Com- 
mission to  act  on  which  you  would  not  get  otherwise. 

If  you  will  allow  me  one  minute,  I  will  tell  you  something 
which  I  observed  myself.  It  may  be  interesting  to  some  of 
you.  I  stopped  olf  at  a  corner  of  a  lane  to  wait  for  a  car  and 
while  I  was  waiting,  I  looked  on  the  ground  and  there  saw  gypsy 
moths.  I  never  saw  them  as  large  in  my  life.  They  were  yel- 
low and  blue  with  big  horns,  worse  than  the  Massachusetts  kind. 
They  were  about  two  inclies  long  and  about  a  quarter  of  an  inch 
thick.  They  walked  along  the  track,  and  I  looked  at  them  and 
followed  them.     My  car  came  along,  and  I  went  down  town  and 


212 

coming  back,  ^^'llile  waiting  for  another  car,  I  wanted  to  take 
a  seat.  There  was  a  walnut  tree  at  the  corner  of  the  lane, 
and  I  wanted  to  take  a  seat  on  a  bench  under  the  tree.  When 
I  came  to  take  that  seat,  it  was  literally  covered  with  those 
gypsy  moths,  coming  oft'  of  that  tree.  What  I  want  to  say  to 
you  is  this:  I  watched  and  noted  that  there  AAas  a  little  fly, 
which  is  like  a  comparison  of  a  guinea  hen  to  an  ordinary 
chicken — they  were  just  that  shape — and  one  or  two  would  fol- 
low a  moth  and  they  would  get  on  top  of  the  moth  and  just 
sting  it  and  jump  off  again.  I  kept  on  investigating,  and  it  took 
me  two  hours  to  watch  them.  As  soon  as  they  would  touch  the 
gypsy  moth  at  a  certain  place  back  of  the  neck,  they  would  kill 
it  every  time.  That  was  an  accidental  investigation.  I  spoke 
to  several  professors  about  it,  and  asked  them  to  look  it  up,  and 
see  whether  they  could  not  propagate  that  fly. 

ME.  STEVENS :     Where  was  that? 

ME.  THALHEIMEE :     In  Eeading,  Pa. 

ME.  STEVENS:  May  I  ask  Dr.  Murrill  a  question?  He 
made  a  statement  that  good  forest  management  would  not  help 
to  control  chestnut  blight  disease.  I  would  like  to  ask  his  au- 
thority for  the  statement. 

DE.  MUEEILL :  My  own  experience  about  New  York  State, 
over  a  wide  area,  for  several  years. 

ME.  STEVENS:    In  forests? 

DE.  MUEEILL:  In  forests,  over  dense,  almost  full  grown 
chestnut  forests.  The  disease  occurs  without  reference  to  ill 
or  Well  trees,  and  I  have  noticed  it  on  vigorous  trees  as  well  as 
on  trees  diseased  from  other  causes. 

PEOFESSOE  EANE :  In  construing  that  term  "forestry 
management,"  it  seems  to  me  it  might  go  further  than  just  ap- 
plying it  to  chestnut  trees.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  our  forest 
management  as  regards  the  moth  situation  is  to  eliminate  those 
trees  and  bring  in  others  that  would  take  their  place.  Forestry 
management  means,  therefore,  the  elimination  of  the  chestnut 
with  the  idea  of  bringing  in  other  species ;  so  we  can  bring  that 
thing  out  in  a  practical  way,  from  a  different  standpoint  than 
just  thinning  the  chestnut. 


213 
DE.  MURRILL :  I  heartily  commend  that. 

MK.  CEAMER,  of  Lehigh  University:  In  reply  to  the  gen- 
tleman at  my  right,  Dr.-Murrill  said  his  observation  was  based 
on  many  years'  experience  of  his  own  in  and  about  the  forests. 
1  would  like  to  submit  the  question  to  this  gentleman  as  what 
those  experiments  were, — actual  work,  or  scientific  experiments, 
actual  work  in  removing  these  infected  trees,  or  examining 
them? 

DE.  MUEEILL:  Both.  We  tried  various  experiments. 
When  the  disease  first  appeared,  we  tried  the  cutting  off  and 
cutting  out,  but  not  the  cutting  of  the  stumps.  Some  of  the 
stumps  were  burned,  and  we  found  that  the  sprouts  sprung  up 
from  several  inches  beloAv  the  ground  and  that  the  disease  went 
into  the  roots  some  distance.  It  also  went  beneath  the  bark 
into  the  wood  and  re-appeared,  so  that  it  was  impossible  to  cut 
it  out.  We  have  had  a  number  of  observations  and  experiments 
about  New  York  to  show  that  forest  management,  so  far  as 
clean  culture  goes,  has  no  effect  whatever  on  the  eradication  or 
on  the  control  of  chestnut  blight. 

ME.  ZIEGLEE :  I  am  concerned  with  the  management  of 
about  twenty  thousand  acres  of  forest,  which  is  largely  chest- 
nut coppice.  I  want  to  tell  you  about  a  condition  existing 
there,  and  to  ask  Dr.  Murrill's  opinion  as  to  what  should  be 
done.  We  have  chestnut  blight  in  those  twenty  thousand  acres 
in  about  ten  spots,  the  largest  of  which  is  about  ten  acres,  ex- 
isting there  for  two  years.  The  first  year's  attack  killed  merely 
a  few  trees  here  and  there.  The  second  year's  attack  shows 
the  death  of  trees  in  a  radiating  direction  from  the  central 
focus,  you  might  call  it.  I  would  like  to  know  what  action 
should  be  taken;  whether  he  would  recommend  cutting  out 
these  few  acres  at  once  and  thereby  trying  to  reduce  the  number 
of  spores  produced,  to  the  degree  of  say  one  one-hundredth,  at 
a  very  small  cost,  or  whether  he  would  leave  those  trees  go  a 
year  longer  and  await  some  other  measure? 

DE.  MUEEILL :  I  have  received  hundreds  of  letters  of  that 
same  nature,  and  now  I  must  answer  all  of  them  in  this  way: 
To  save,  utilize,  and  market  your  timber  is  the  first  considera- 


214. 

tion,  when  the  disease  has  entered  a  forest  of  that  extent.  There- 
fore, cnt  yonr  timber  that  is  likely  to  go  to  waste  first.  Cut  it 
first,  if  favorable,  and  later,  as  the  disease  encroaches,  cut  other 
timber  and  nse  it  and  market  it,  so  that  you  may  not  glut  the 
market. 

ME.  ZIEGLEK  :  May  I  suggest  that  that  is  practically  along 
the  line  that  is  being  followed  by  the  Penna.  Blight  Commis- 
sion, so  far  as  1  have  been  able  to  learn  of  it,  and  that  is  the  line 
^\e  hope  to  follow,  following  their  advice. 

DE.  MICKLEBOEOUdH :  Dr.  Murrill,  have  you  been  cut- 
ting the  chestnut  growth  up  at  the  Bronx  Garden? 

DE.  MUEEILL:  We  are  noAV  cutting  down  the  last  trees. 
It  has  cost  us  five  thousand  dollars  to  cut  down  fourteen  hun- 
dred trees  in  fifty  acres  of  the  Bronx  Park. 

DE.  MICKLEBOEOUGH :  I  would  like  to  ask  Dr.  Murrill 
another  question,  and  that  is,  in  the  early  stages  of  the  disease 
on  western  Long  Island,  where  it  is  in  the  most  malignant  form, 
if  it  was  not  his  suggestion  to  the  Park  Commissioners  in  the 
autumn  of  1907  or  1908,  on  account  of  the  prevalence  of  the  dis- 
ease in  Prospect  Park  Avhere  there  were  tAvelve  or  fifteen  hun- 
dred chestnut  trees,  and  if  you  did  not  also  recommend  to  do 
the  cutting  there? 

DE.  MUEEILL:  That  has  been  my  recommendation,  Mr. 
Chairman,  until  we  found  it  was  hopeless,  and  tlie  area  of  the 
disease  was  so  great  as  to  make  it  practically  impossible  to  cut 
these  trees.  We  have  not  been  able  to  get  money  enough  appro- 
priated by  the  Parks  and  ])ul)lic  in  New  York  City  to  cut  out 
the  dead  wood  caused  by  this  disease. 

Mr.  E.  A.  AVEliYIEE,  of  Lebanon,  Pa.:  Mr.  CUiairman  and 
Gentlemen:  I  would  like  to  address  a  feAv  unscientific  remarks 
to  the  owners  of  wood  lots  or  forests,  and  if  my  scientific  friends 
wish  to  listen,  they  may. 

I  have  been  interested  in  forestry  for  twenty-four  years  and 
have  made  a  study  of  the  chestnut  blight  during  the  past  four 
years.  I  think  that  I  liave  the  honor,  with  the  Hon.  Mr.  Elliott, 
who  is  here,  and  Dr.  Drinker,  in  discovering  the  first  entry  of 


215 

the  blight  into  Pennsylvania.  I  have  here  in  a  jar  a  sample  of 
that  very  first  specimen,  three  and  one-half  years  old.  It  has 
been  sealed  ever  since,  I  am  told,  and  it  shows  living  or  active 
spores.  I  show  you  this  to  demonstrate  the  care  that  is  nec- 
essary to  take  in  getting  rid  of  the  refuse  of  the  trees  and  their 
bark  when  we  go  to  cut  them  down. 

To  land  owners  I  wish  to  say  that  I  have  myself  a  tract  of 
chestnut  timber  in  Lebanon  county.  The  trees  there  are  forty- 
one  years  old  and  they  will  range  all  the  way  from  forty  to 
ninety  feet  in  height,  and  from  ten  to  twenty  inches  in  diameter. 
This  tract  of  land  shows  every  condition,  you  may  say,  of  alti- 
tudes, of  moisture,  and  of  soil  conditions.  It  has  a  north,  soutb, 
east,  and  west  exposure,  because  it  is  in  the  shape  of  a  horse- 
shoe. It  has  an  altitude  of  eleven  hundred  feet  at  the  highest 
part  and  at  the  lowest  of  seven  hundred  feet  above  sea  level.  It 
also  has  a  stream  running  through  it  which  gives  you  a  swampy 
portion.  Up  at  the  top  it  is  very  gravelly;  on  one  side  it  is 
clay,  and  on  the  other  side  you  will  find  some  of  the  best  of 
wheat  land.  In  every  one  of  these  sections  I  have  found  focal 
centers  of  blight,  making  this  tract  a  perfect  field  for  study. 

Here  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  one  thing  that  has  just 
come  to  my  mind:  Do  not  depend  on  discovering  blight  from 
surface  indications  only.  The  inspectors  and  myself  have  gone 
through  my  tract  several  times,  and  we  thought  we  had  discov- 
ered several  trees  only  with  the  blight  in  its  advanced  stages, 
and  a  small  number  of  other  trees  showing  onlj^  traces. 

Two  weeks  ago,  however,  the  Forestry  Department  asked  me 
to  cut  two  carloads  of  blighted  wood  to  demonstrate  to  the  ex- 
tract manufacturers  that  the  bliglit  had  no  effect  on  the  produc- 
tion of  tannic  acid.  So  we  went  out  to  my  tract,  and  Mr.  Wirt 
and  Mr.  Fox  of  the  Forestry  Department,  helped  to  locate  trees. 
After  going  through  the  tract  and  locating  only  two  focal 
centers  of  about  twenty-five  trees,  we  commenced  to  wonder 
where  the  two  carloads,  twenty-seven  cords,  were  to  come  from. 

I  then  suggested  to  Mr.  Fox,  who  remained  on  the  job,  that 
we  start  cutting  down  the  trees  around  the  focal  centers,  and, 
if  we  found  trees  not  infected,  we  would  throw  them  aside.  We 
started  cutting  and  chopped  down  an  acre  of  trees  that  showed 
few  signs  as  vicAved  from  the  ground,  but  when  cut  down,  we  saw 


216 

that  their  tops  were  badly  infected;  every  one  in  fact.  This 
shows  that  when  you  find  a  focal  center,  it  would  be  advisable 
to  keep  on  cutting  all  around  the  focal  center  until  you  have 
taken  every  infected  tree,  and  not  to  depeud  on  surface  indica- 
tions. 

You  may  look  at  the  stump  with  a  microscope  and  you  may 
not  find  any  spores;  for  I  will  tell  you  that  I  have  hunted  for 
surface  indications  of  the  blight  for  the  past  few  years  in  my 
tract,  and  never  found  indications  of  the  bark  splitting  or  spore 
dust  at  the  roots  or  base  of  the  stump,  until  last  year,  yet  the 
tops  of  the  trees,  in  certain  sections,  are  all  dead;  they  started 
dying  several  years  ago. 

I  want  to  say  one  thing  more.  The  farmers  can  help  the 
Pennsylvania  Chestnut  Blight  Commission  by  starting  to  do 
some  of  the  work  of  inspection  themselves,  and  if  in  doubt,  may 
call  on  the  Commission  for  advice  and  information.  The  Com- 
mission is  willing  to  send  men  out  to  help  you  to  locate  the 
blight  and  tell  you  what  to  do.  I  will  also  try  to  help  you,  or, 
if  you  will  send  your  foresters  to  my  tract  near  Mt.  Gretna,  I 
will  try  to  help  them. 

I  have  discovered  a  new  way  of  finding  the  blight  which  T 
wish  to  present  to  this  body  for  what  it  is  worth.  I  want  to  tell 
you  how  you  can  see  the  blight  even  ninety  feet  in  the  air  on 
what  we  call  top-infected  trees.  You  place  your  back  directly 
towards  the  sun,  half  close  your  eyes  and  then  look  up  along 
tlie  top  part  of  the  tree,  and  if  there  is  any  blight  in  the  cracks 
of  the  bark  in  a  direct  line  with  the  rays  of  the  sun,  you  will 
find  the  yellow  spores  highly  illuminated.  Under  any  other 
condition  you  would  not  see  these  spores,  as  they  would  be 
hidden  by  the  shadows  cast  by  the  bark.  Now,  say  in  two  hours, 
after  the  suu  lias  illumiuated  another  portion  of  the  tree,  you 
had  better  go  through  that  tract  again.  In  other  words,  start 
c»ut  going  through  the  tract  by  one  route  so  planned  that  during 
different  times  of  the  day  you  will  have  passed  the  same  tree 
several  times,  and  each  time  place  the  sun  directly  back  of  you, 
and  you  will  be  surprised  with  the  results.  I  think  Mr.  Fox,  (if 
he  is  here),  will  verify  what  I  have  said.  Both  of  us  spent 
three  days  in  inspecting  an  area  of  trees,  and  did  not  find  an 
infected  tree.    But,  one  morning,  on  that  coldest  day  we  had  for 


217 

years,  two  weeks  ago,  I  got  up  at  six  o'clock,  and  found  over 
seventy-five  trees  by  this  sun  method  in  a  place  that  we  had  gone 
over  three  times  before,  and  we  were  truly  surprised. 

I  notice  that  some  of  the  experts  are  laughing,  but  I  will 
wager  that  I  will  take  anyone  to  my  tract,  and  they  will  pass 
by  the  trees  referred  to  as  uninfested.  I  will  then  cut  these 
trees  down  and  show  them  the  blight. 

These  trees  are  just  as  dangerous  as  the  trees  infected  with 
the  blight  from  top  to  bottom.  If  yon  think  you  do  not  have 
the  blight  among  your  trees,  sacrifice  a  few  trees  that  look 
suspicious,  and  the  chances  are  that  you  will  see  it  on  the  top 
branches.  If  it  is  possible  to  get  up  on  some  high  point  over- 
looking your  forest,  and  you  notice  brown  or  yellow  patches 
of  tree  tops,  go  and  cut  the  trees  down  in  those  spots  whether 
you  see  the  blight  or  not.  Take  no  chances,  because  it  is  a 
disease  that  you  can  take  no  chances  with. 

I  want  to  tell  you  another  thing.  We  may  not  be  able  to 
control  the  blight  by  cutting  down  the  trees,  but  it  is  worth 
while  taking  the  chances,  and  all  these  men  who  have  property, 
1  think  have  money  enough  to  take  the  chances.  I  would  advise 
cutting  down  the  trees  quickly  in  the  forests.  Do  it  tomorrow, 
because  winter  time  is  the  best  time.  The  spores  are  in  their 
winter  quarters  and  are  less  likely  to  be  blown  around.  Cut 
them  down,  bark  them  and,  if  possible,  try  to  burn  up  all  the 
leaves  and  brush  in  the  infected  areas.  If  necessary,  sacrifice 
that  area.  Put  all  the  branches  and  bark  over  the  stumps  and 
spray  them  with  coal  oil  or  better,  cheap  crude  oil.  Buy  one  of 
those  cheap  sprayers,  costing  about  six  dollars,  and  atomize 
the  oil.  You  will  find  that  a  few  gallons  will  cover  a  number 
of  stumps  and  enable  you  to  burn  the  stump  down  to  the  ground. 
It  will  kill  all  the  spores  and  borers.  On  the  first  application 
of  the  heat,  the  bark  peels  away  from  the  stump,  and  that 
presents  the  spores  and  borers  to  the  flame  where  they  are 
destroyed  at  once.  Burning  the  stumps  is  better  than  peeling 
them,  because  Avhen  you  peel  off  the  bark,  you  lose  some  of  the 
bark  or  shake  the  spores  out  on  the  ground. 

This  bottled  specimen  which  I  have  shows  that  the  spores 
will  live  three  and  one  half  years.  This  should  show  you  the 
uecessity  of  killing  all  the  spores  possible. 


218 

Here  is  one  benefit  of  the  Chiestnut  Blight  Commission's  work. 
They  propose  to  cut  down  the  infected  trees.  It  may  not  stop 
the  blight,  but  one  thing  it  will  do.  If  they  burn  the  stumps, 
it  will  produce  tlie  best  possible  new  condition  for  the  manag- 
ing of  that  forest.  Even  if  the  blight  does  come  back  on  the 
sprouts,  you  can  work  on  the  sprouts  and  cut  them  off  the  second 
time,  if  necessary.  You  can  also  spray  the  young  growth  with 
iime-sulphur  solution  for  the  fungus,  and  apply  some  other 
solution  to  be  discovered  for  the  borers.  It  will  also  teach  us 
the  true  value  of  chestnut  wood. 

I  think  our  chances  of  controlling  the  disease  are  good.  I  do 
not  say  or  believe  that  we  are  going  to  kill  it  entirely,  because, 
to  my  knowledge,  no  spore  diseases  have  ever  been  completely- 
eradicated.  We  still  have  the  black-knot  with  us,  as  w^ell  as 
the  peach-yellows,  but  they  are  now  both  so  well  controlled 
that  we  have  almost  forgotten  them. 

We  may  be  able  to  check  the  blight  to  such  an  extent  that 
nature  will  be  able  to  supply  a  means  to  throAv  off  the  disease 
in  due  time,  especially  if  we  aid  her  by  killing  the  borers  and 
limiting  the  supply  of  spores.  So,  again  I  say,  I  believe  the 
Chestnut  Blight  Commission  is  on  the  right  track,  and  my 
forest  preserve  is  open  to  any  man  interested  in  this  work. 

My  address  is  E.  A.  Weimer,  Lebanon,  Pa.,  and  I  will  say 
to  any  man  who  comes  to  Lebanon,  I  will  show  him  all  I  can; 
every  condition  of  forestry  that  has  developed  on  my  tracts 
from  over  twenty-four  years  of  practice.     (Applause). 

PROFESSOK  COLLINS :  The  statement  was  made  that  this 
specimen  in  the  bottle  had  been  sealed  for  three  and  a  half 
years,  and  the  spores  are  still  alive,  as  I  understood  it.  I  think 
Mr.  AVeimer  forgot  to  tell  how  he  knew  they  are  alive. 

MR.  WEIMER:  You  can  see  in  the  lower  part  here  (exhibit- 
ing bottle),  that  the  spores  have  become  very  active.  They 
retain  their  red  color,  whereas,  up  here  where  they  are  dead 
or  dormant,  they  turned  black,  and  have  fallen  off.  I  think 
that  is  the  best  indication  that  I  can  offer.  These  indications 
were  thought  good  enough  for  my  purpose. 

PROFESSOR  COLLINS :     I  think  the  observations  would  be 


219 

a  little  more  conclusive  if  the  gentleman  would  try  cultures  to 
see  if  they  Avould  grow. 

MR.  WEIMEE:  I  agree  with  the  Professor,  and  will  say 
that  this  specimen  is  now  the  property  of  the  Forestry  Depart- 
ment, and  I  will  kindly  ask  them  to  have  a  culture  test  made. 

DE.  MICKLEBOKOUGH:  May  I  make  a  brief  statement 
with  reference  to  the  life  of  spores?  I  have  a  little  vial  with 
me  in  which  I  have  the  ascospores  that  I  .collected  at  Glad- 
stone, New  Jersey,  on  Memorial  Day,  1908.  I  have  examined 
■those  spores  from  time  to  time,  and  find  they  are  still  alive. 
How  do  we  know  they  are  alive?  We  can  take,  as  I  have  done, 
a  five  per  cent,  solution  of  pure  glycerine,  and  the  spores  will 
sprout  in  it.  These  ascospores  will  sprout  and  I  have  examined 
the  sproutings  under  the  microscope,— the  mycelium  threads. 
T  was  performing  a  miscroscopic  test  to  harden  spores  for  the 
microscope,  to  make  a  permanent  mount,  and  I  accidentally 
found  that,  instead  of  hardening  the  spores,  my  five  per  cent, 
solution  of  pure  glycerine  only  was  food  for  them  and  they 
proceeded  to  sprout. 

Let  me  remind  you  that  those  little  pieces  of  bark  that  I  have 
in  the  vial  with  me  in  my  coat  pocket  have  been  kept  dry,  free, 
from  moisture.  If  they  had  been  out  in  the  forest,  or  subjected 
to  the  climatic  conditions  which  fungi  require,  heat  and  moisture 
both,  I  am  very  sure  those  spores  would  have  been  developed 
and  disseminated  long  ago.  They  would  have  lasted  perhaps 
but  a  few  months;  but  you  take  them  and  keep  them  perfectly 
dry,  and  I  believe  that  you  can  prolong  the  life  of  the  ascospores, 
and  probably  the  conidia,  for  several  years. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Would  it  be  well,  gentlemen,  to  agree 
upon  a  time  for  final  adjournment,  so  that  we  may  know  what 
we  are  working  toward?  I  wish  also  to  arrange  for  the  Gov- 
ernor to  come  in.  Would  it  be  well  now  to  set  a  time  for  ad- 
journment? 

A  DELEGATE :    I  move  you  that  we  adjourn  at  4.15  p.  m. 

MR.  PEIRCE  :     I  move  that  the  time  be  amended  to  4  :30  p.  m. 

MR.  BODINE :  I  think  it  was  announced  at  the  beginning 
of  the  session  that  we  were  to  be  favored  by  a  farewell  visit 


220 

of  the  Governor.    Should  we  not  consult  his  convenience  before 
fixing  an  hour  for  adjournment? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  He  has  stated  that  it  would  be  agree- 
able to  him  to  come  in  at  any  time. 

The  substituted  motion  is  that  the  hour  of  adjournment  be 
fixed  at  4 :30. 

The  motion  was  seconded  and  carried. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  your  pleasure  with  reference 
to  appointing  a  committee  to  wait  on  the  Grovernor? 

PROFESSOR  RANE :     I  so  move  you. 
Seconded. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  is  moved  that  a  committee  be  ap- 
pointed to  escort  the  Governor  into  the  room  before  adjourn- 
ment. 

The  motion  was  put  and  carried. 

THE  CHAIRMAN :  The  Chair  will  appoint  as  that  commit- 
tee, Commissioner  Bodine,  of  the  Chestnut  Tree  Blight  Com- 
mission, Dr.  Merkel,  of  New  York,  and  State  Forester  Rane  of 
Massachusetts,  and  will  request  them  to  escort  the  Governor 
into  the  meeting  ten  or  fifteen  minutes  before  the  adjournment, 
as  they  find  it  to  be  convenient. 

DR.  HARSHBERGER,  of  Philadelphia :  A  very  simple  test 
could  be  made  of  the  vitality  of  those  spores  which  Mr.  Weimer 
has,  by  growing  them  on  an  ordinary  culture  medium,  and  I 
would  make  the  suggestion  that  Mr.  Weimer  send  his  specimens 
to  the  proper  person  connected  with  this  Commission,  and  have 
the  test  made  to  ascertain  whether  those  spores  he  has  in  the 
bottle  still  retain  their  vitality  or  not. 

THE  CHAIRMAN :  The  suggestion  is  made  by  Dr.  Harsh- 
berger  that  Mr.  Weimer  be  requested  to  send  the  spores  to  an 
expert  connected  with  the  Chestnut  Tree  Blight  Commission 
for  examination  as  to  their  vitality,  and,  if  agreeable,  the  Chair 
would  suggest  that  the  result  of  that  examination  be  included 
in  tlie  proceedings  of  this  meeting. 

MR.  WEIMER:  This  sample  is  in  charge  of  the  Forestry 
Department,  so  that  Mr.  Williams  or  Mr.  Wirt  will  attend 
to  that.    It  is  their  privilege.    I  will  take  it  up  with  them. 


221 

THE  CHAIRMAN :  We  will  dismiss  the  matter,  then,  with 
the  understanding  that  Mr.  Weimer  will  take  it  up  with  tlie 
Forestry  Department,  and  if  there  is  no  objection,  authority 
is  given  to  include  the  report  of  that  investigation  in  the  report 
of  this  meeting. 

PROFESSOR  GRAVES :  I  would  like  to  ask  Mr.  Detwiler 
a  question  about  this  dead  line.  Is  that  going  to  be  delimited 
by  cutting  out  all  the  chestnut,  healthy  and  diseased,  or  is  it 
just  simply  an  arbitrary  line?  I  want  to  know  this  for  in- 
formation. 

MR.  DETWILER :  The  dead-line  which  we  plan  to  estab- 
lish will  be  maintained  by  cutting  out  the  diseased  trees  as 
located  by  constant  control;  and  we  have  not  yet  considered 
cutting  out  all  of  the  chestnut  trees,  unless  the  owners  are 
willing  to  do  it.  If,  upon  an  explanation  of  the  situation,  the 
owners  are  willing  to  do  this,  we  have  advised  that  it  be  done. 

PROFESSOR  GRAVES:  If  this  sort  of  work  is  going  to 
be  taken  up  by  the  State,  it  seems  to  me  it  would  be  a  good 
Ijlan  to  delimit  all  areas  which  contain  no  chestnuts.  I  have 
the  honor,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  be  the  gentleman  who  went  through 
the  State  of  Massachusetts  on  a  motorcycle,  as  Professor  Rane 
said  this  morning,  and  I  found  a  great  many  areas  there  which 
had  no  chestnuts  at  all,  and  some  such  areas  I  am  sure  occur 
in  Pennsylvania;  so  if  you  are  going  to  take  up  this  method, 
it  seems  to  me  such  areas  ought  to  be  marked  out  and  then 
start  west  of  those. 

PROFESSOR  NORTON:  I  desire  to  make  a  suggestion. 
There  may  be  a  great  deal  of  chestnut  that  must  be  cut  and 
utilized  which  might  possibly  over-stock  the  market.  Why  could 
not  the  chestnut  that  is  beyond  the  needs  of  the  market  have 
the  tannin  extracted  from  it  and  stored  for  future  sales,  either 
by  corporations,  individuals,  or  possibly  by  the  State?  I  would 
like  to  mention  another  question  of  a  scientific  nature  that  has 
been  suggested  and  which  I  think  has  not  been  brought  out 
sufficiently.  Of  course,  those  who  are  familiar  with  fungous 
diseases  understand  this,  but  I  believe  that  a  good  many  people 
who  are  not  familiar  with  the  nature  of  fungi  would  not  appre- 


elate  it,  and  that  is  the  question  of  the  diiference  in  the  oppor- 
tunity for  its  infection  where  you  have  destroyed,  say  fifty  per 
cent,  of  the  infected  material,  or  where  you  have  destroyed 
ninety  per  cent,  of  it  or  ninety-nine  per  cent.  Professor  Stewart 
spoke  of  that,  but  I  wish  that  someone  who  is  familiar  with 
statistics  on  that  could  bring  it  out  a  little  better;  whether 
there  would  be  much  difference  in  the  opportunity  for  infection 
where  you  have  destroyed  fifty  per  cent.,  ninety  per  cent,  or 
ninety-nine  per  cent,  of  the  infected  material?  Of  course,  we 
understand  that  where  ninety-nine  per  cent  of  it  has  been  de- 
stroyed, there  still  would  possibly  be  hundreds  of  millions  of 
spores  in  a  small  area. 

PEOFESSOR  RANE :  I  have  some  resolutions  which  I  would 
like  to  present  at  this  time : 

"Resolved,  That  the  delegates  and  others  in  attendance  at 
this  Conference  desire  to  express  their  high  sense  of  apprecia- 
tion of  the  many  courtesies  tendered  them  by  the  oificers  of 
the  Pennsylvania  State  Chestnut  Blight  Commission  and  the 
Department  of  Forestry." 

It  was  moved  and  seconded  that  the  resolution  be  adopted. 

The  motion  was  x^ut  and  unanimously  carried. 

PROFESSOR  RANE  :     I  have  another  resolution : 

"Resolved,  That  the  thanks  of  this  convention  be,  and  are 
iiereby  tendered  Hon.  R.  A.  Pearson  for  his  able  and  courteous 
way  of  handling  the  duties  of  permanent  Chairman."  (Ap 
plause). 

MR.  BESLEY  (in  the  Chair)  :  Mr.  Pearson  is  too  modest  to 
put  that  resolution,  so  I  take  pleasure  in  putting  it  before  this 
house,  and  if  there  is  no  discussion, — I  believe  it  is  seconded, — 
I  suggest  an  immediate  vote  on  that  question. 

The  motion  was  put  to  adopt  the  resolution  and  unanimously 
carried.     ( Applause ) . 

MR.  PEARSON:  Mr.  Temporary  Chairman,  Ladies  and 
Gentlemen :  I  sincerely  thank  you  for  this  compliment.  I 
thanked  you  at  the  opening  of  the  conference  for  the  honor  of 
being  your  presiding  officer,  and  I  wish  to  assure  you  it  has 


'223 

been  a  great  privilege  to  me.  I  feel  that  we  have  really  accom- 
plished something  here  which  is  worth  while,  and  I  trust  that 
the  good  that  has  been  done  will  be  recognized  more  and  more 
as  time  passes. 

There  are  two  gentlemen  in  the  room  who,  I  am  sure,  every- 
one wishes  to  hear  from  before  we  adjourn.  Several  times  dur- 
ing our  conference  mention  has  been  made  of  the  first  discovery 
of  the  chestnut  tree  blight,  and  the  name  of  the  gentleman  who 
discovered  it  has  been  mentioned  several  times.  I  think  we 
ought  to  ask  him  formally  to  come  before  us,  and  make  a  few 
remarks.    I  refer  to  Mr.  Merkel,  of  New  York. 

ME.  MEEKEL :  I  do  not  know  what  Mr.  Pearson  wants  me 
to  say;  whether  he  is  wishing  for  blarney  or  not.  I  can  only 
say  that  I  came  in  order  to  hear  the  opinions  of  everybody 
expressed.  I  am  glad  that  the  resolutions  that  were  adopted 
were  adopted,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  there  were  some  people 
who  did  not  agree  with  them.  I  believe  that  the  work  of  this 
Congress  to-day  is  epoch-making.  I  believe  we  have  advanced  a 
vast  step.  We  have  gone  further  yesterday  and  to-day  by  miles 
than  we  were  the  day  before.  I  hope  that  we  can  save  the  chest- 
nut tree.  My  fondness  for  trees  in  general  is  the  only  reason 
that  brought  me  here ;  but  that  I  should  be  pushed  into  the  lime- 
light thus, — a  modest  violet  like  I  am, — was  not  my  intention. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Frequently  during  our  discussion  we 
have  heard  about  the  need  of  constructive  work.  The  one  man 
of  the  entire  State,  and  I  dare  say  the  entire  world,  who  has 
made  possible  the  greatest  constructive  work  against  the  Chest- 
nut Tree  Blight  Disease  is  now  in  the  room,  and  I  must  call 
upon  the  father  of  the  measure  which  is  responsible  for  the 
effective  work  in  Pennsylvania  for  a  few  words.  Senator  Sproul. 
(Applause). 

SENATOE  SPEOUL:  Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen:  A 
member  of  the  Senate  is  generally  safe  in  the  House,  and  I  did 
not  know  that  anyone  in  any  official  capacity  knew  I  had  come 
over  here. 

THE  CHAIEMAN :    We  all  know  you. 


224 

SENATOR  SPROUL :  I  am  very  glad,  indeed,  to  have  had  an 
opportunity  of  looking  in  on  this  meeting.  When  the  bill  was 
introduced  and  considered,  it  was  regarded  as  largely  an  ex- 
periment, and  it  was  thought  that  probably  the  State  was  taking 
rather  large  chances  in  making  available  so  large  a  sum  of  money 
for  carrying  on  a  work  which  nobody  at  that  time  seemed  to 
know  very  much  about.  I  think  that,  from  what  I  have  heard 
of  the  results  of  this  meeting,  if  no  other  good  were  accom- 
plished by  the  expenditure  of  the  money  by  Pennsylvania,  the 
initiative  taken  in  investigating  this  very  serious  question  and 
in  trying  to  devise  ways  and  means  to  control  the  disease, — if 
no  other  good  out  of  this  meeting  has  been  accomplished,  I  think 
that  the  expenditure  was  perfectly  justifiable.  I  am  glad  indeed 
to  hear  the  expressions  from  the  discoverer  of  the  chestnut 
blight  and  others  as  to  the  usefulness  of  this  Convention,  and 
I  trust  that  the  good  work  will  go  on,  not  only  here  but  every- 
v/here  where  this  disease  is  threatening  so  much  harm.  (Ap- 
plause). 

THE  CHAIRMAN :  A  request  has  been  made  that  Deputy 
Couunissioner  Williams  say  a  word  before  we  adjourn,  and  at 
the  same  time  advise  you  how  extra  reports  of  this  Conference 
may  be  secured,  if  persons  wish  to  have  them. 

MR.  WILLIAMS :  I  had  no  intention  of  speaking  again. 
All  I  can  say  is  that  we  hope,  and  the  Commission  hopes,  to 
liave  this  report  transcribed  and  published  at  an  early  date. 
When  it  is  printed  every  person  who  has  registered  here,  as 
visitor  or  delegate,  who  has  come  at  the  behest  of  his  Governor 
or  some  institution  which  he  represents,  will  be  sent  gratis, 
through  the  mails,  a  copy  of  this  report.  Every  other  person 
interested  in  having  a  copy  of  the  report  can  make  application 
to  the  headquarters  of  the  Chestnut  Blight  Commission  in  Phila- 
delphia, 1112  Morris  Building  in  that  city,  and,  so  far  as  may 
be  possible,  I  think  their  requests  will  be  complied  with.  Just 
how  soon  it  will  be  possible  to  have  this  record  in  print  we 
do  not  know,  but  no  time  will  be  wasted  in  the  interim. 

I  do  not  think  I  have  anything  further  to  say  except  to  add 
this  word:  That  the  Pennsylvania  Department  of  Forestry  is 
interested  with  all  other  foresters  and  all  other  practical  men 


225 

and  all  other  scientific  investigators,  in  doing  what  we  can  to 
produce  the  greatest  good.  What  we  are  aiming  at  in  Pennsyl- 
vania is  to  get  results,  and  I  take  it  that  when  this  problem 
is  understood  by  our  friends  and  neighbors,  they  will  equally 
be  anxious  to  get  results.  These  will  be  obtained  through  var- 
ious pathways  and  by  different  means,  but  it  is  the  favorable 
result  that  we  are  interested  in.  That  is  the  great  goal  of  all 
this  effort.  We  would  be  very  pleased  to  have  any  of  the  dele- 
gates and  friends  Avho  are  here  call  at  the  Department  of  For- 
estry. Many  of  you  have  been  there;  probably  many  have  not. 
You  will  find  it  in  the  north  wing  of  this  building,  and  we  usually 
have  open  house  from  seven  o'clock  in  the  morning  until  ten 
o'clock  at  night.  Sometimes  the  doors  are  open  all  night,  so 
we  are  ready  to  receive  our  friends  at  any  hour  of  the  day  or 
night.  I  thank  you  for  this  final  opportunity  to  say  a  word 
to  you,  and  trust  that  your  visit  in  Pennsylvania  will  not  have 
been  without  some  permanent  result.     (Applause). 

ME.  THALHEIMER :  I  would  like  to  ask  the  delegates  that 
are  here  whether  any  of  them  has  had  any  communication  with 
the  Italian  Government,  to  find  out  their  success  in  raising 
the  chestnut. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  We  are  going  to  refer  the  speaker  to 
the  Secretary  of  the  Conference  for  that  information,  and  he 
can  give  it  immediately  after  adjournment.  The  Secretary  is 
thoroughly  informed  on  the  subject. 

Although  I  have  been  very  positively  instructed  not  to  do 
so,  I  must  at  this  time  call  for  a  word,  at  least,  from  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Pennsylvania  Blight  Commission,  Mr.  Harold  Pierce. 
(Applause). 

MR.  PEIRCE :  Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen :  As  Secretary 
of  the  Chestnut  Tree  Blight  Commission,  in  behalf  of  the  Com- 
mission, I  want  to  thank  both  you,  Mr.  Chairman  and  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Conference,  for  the  close  and  business-like  attention 
that  has  been  given  to  the  various  discussions  that  have  taken 
place,  and  while  at  times  there  has  been  great  diversity  of 
opinion,  yet  from  that  very  diversity  we  trust  much  practical 
good  may  result, 

15 


226 

At  the  request  of  Governor  Tener,  the  Commission  prepared 
the  programme,  but  in  arranging  for  the  speakers  it  tried  to 
pirovide  for  full  and  frank  discussions  by  both  the  supporters 
and  opponents  of  what  is  known  as  "the  cutting  out  process," 
so  that  every  one  would  have  a  fair  chance  of  being  heard. 

If  at  any  time  any  one  has  information  of  value  to  impart, 
the  Commission  will  be  only  too  glad  to  hear  from  such  persons, 
and  we  assure  you  that  anything  which  may  seem  likely  to  be 
able  either  to  curb  or  cure  the  disease,  will  be  gladly  given  a 
trial  by  the  Commission. 

The  Commission  considers  it  has  been  wise  to  make  what  has 
been  called  a  dead  line,  believing  the  ravages  of  the  disease 
can  thereby  be  much  better  controlled  than  to  allow  the  disease 
to  continue  to  spread  as  it  did  for  several  years,  without  any 
attempt  to  keep  it  within  bounds. 

At  the  same  time,  the  Commission  intends  to  do  all  it  can 
to  carry  on  investigations  both  in  the  field  and  in  the  laboratory, 
hoping  that  in  the  near  future  some  cure  may  be  ascertained. 
We,  however,  believe  that  if  we  are  to  succeed,  we  must  have 
the  earnest  co-operation  of  all  the  states,  for  it  seems  self- 
evident  to  us  that  Pennsylvania  cannot  win  without  such  co- 
operation. We  therefore  earnestly  trust  every  member  of  this 
Conference  will  go  from  here  to  his  home  imbued  with  the  feel- 1 
ing  that  he  will  do  all  in  his  power  to  bring  about  such  co- 
operation. Without  that,  I  fear  it  will  only  be  a  short  time 
before  all  the  chestnut  trees  along  the  Atlantic  seaboard  will 
be  in  a  dying  state. 

As  far  as  possible,  the  resolutions  which  this  Conference 
has  passed,  will  be  carried  out  by  the  Pennsylvania  Commis- 
sion, and  in  closing,  I  want  again  to  thank  you  both  for  the 
close  and  businesslike  character  of  this  Conference  and  to  urge 
earnestly  that  if  anyone  here  learns  of  anything  which  may  be 
of  value,  either  in  controlling  or  curing  this  disease,  that  he 
will  at  once  inform  us  of  it. 

Messrs.  Bodine,  Merkel,  and  Rane  then  escorted  the  Governor 
to  the  floor  of  the  Convention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN :  Governor  Tener,  I  desire  to  report  to  you 
that  during  these  two  days  we  have  been  discussing  the  various 
phases  of  the  chestnut  tree  blight.     Many  valuable  points  have 


been  brought  out.  The  main  conclusions  of  the  Conference  have 
been  embodied  in  a  set  of  resolutions,  duly  adopted  this  after- 
noon. It  has  been  arranged,  through  the  courtesy  of  your  own 
State,  to  publish  the  proceedings  of  this  Conference,  in  order 
that  what  has  been  said  and  done  here  may  become  widely  known 
for  the  benefit  of  the  fight  against  this  terrible  tree  disease. 

And  now.  Sir,  our  deliberations  have  about  ended,  and  it  is 
a  privilege,  and  I  deem  it  an  honor,  for  me  to  turn  back  to  you 
the  duty  as  presiding  officer  of  this  meeting,  as  I  received  that 
duty  from  you  only  yesterday.     (Applause). 

GOVERNOR  TENER:  Mr.  Chairman,  Ladies  and  Gentle- 
men: While  it  has  not  been  possible  for  me  to  attend  the 
meetings  of  your  Convention  since  its  opening  and  to  listen  to 
the  various  papers  that  have  been  read  or  to  take  part  in  the 
deliberations  of  the  meeting,  yet  from  time  to  time  information 
has  come  to  me,  and  I  have  learned  that  your  meeting  has  in 
every  way  been  an  interesting  one  and  that  you  all  will  go 
home  feeling  that  you  have  probably  learned  something  from 
this  meeting  and  from  each  other. 

I  hope  that  the  purpose  of  the  convention  was  suflftcient  to 
justify  calling  you  here.  Many  of  you  have  come  at  some  incon- 
venience, I  am  quite  sure.  Pennsylvania  will  be  very  glad, — 
and  I  am  particularly  pleased  to  say  it, — at  her  own  expense, 
little  or  great  as  it  may  be,  to  print  the  proceedings  of  this  con- 
ference and  to  give  the  report  the  very  widest  circulation.  I  am 
glad  that  you  have  seen  fit  to  come  here  and  to  take  the  interest 
you  have. 

I  have  learned  also  that  at  times  there  was  some  spirited 
argument  between  you,  and  very  often  we  know  that  out  of  a 
great  conflict  comes  the  greatest  peace  and  the  best  understand- 
ing, and  I  hope  that  that  is  the  case  in  this  instance. 

And  now,  as  you  go  to  your  respective  homes,  I  hope  you 
Avill  carry  with  you  a  very  pleasant  thought  of  this  convention 
and  that,  in  the  days  to  come,  your  associations  here,  your  de- 
liberations, and  all  that  you  have  done,  will  prove  a  most  pleas- 
ant recollection  to  you  all.  We  are  glad  indeed  to  have  had 
you  in  our  Capital  City  with  us  on  this  occasion.  Now  that 
you  are  going,  I  wish  you  Godspeed,  happiness,  and  prosperity  in 
all  your  undertakings  of  life.     (Applause). 


228 

If  there  is  no   further  business  for  the  Convention,  I  will 
entertain  a  motion  to  adjourn. 

DE.  MURRILL :    I  move  you,  Sir,  that  we  adjourn. 
Seconded  by  Professor  Rane. 
The  motion  was  put  and  carried. 

GOVERNOR  TENER:     I  now  declare  this  Convention   ad 
journed  sine  die. 


ADDENDA. 

Newport,  Perry  County,  Pa., 

February  21,  1912. 

To  the  Officers  of  the  Cliestnut  Blight  Convention: 

I  desire  to  submit  a  statement  in  connection  with  this  blighted 
wood  question  which  is  not  the  professional  opinion  of  any 
representative  of  the  Chemical  or  Forestry  Department  of  the 
State,  or  any  scientist;  but  is  presented  merely  as  the  thought 
of  a  layman  who  has  had  considerable  experience  in  the  chest- 
nut wood  extract  business,  and  who  has  conceived  the  idea  that 
it  might  possibly,  in  a  way,  have  some  bearing  upon  matters 
under  consideration  by  the  convention.  It  is  submitted  merely 
as  an  individual  hypothesis,  which  may  be  entirely  wrong. 

W.  M.  BENSON. 


229 


CHESTNUT  BLIGHT  AND  ITS  POSSIBLE  EEMEDY. 


By  W.   M.  BENSON,    NEWPORT,    PA. 

In  discussing  the  causes  of  the  chestnut  blight  perhaps  the 
past  experience  of  the  extract  manufacturers  who  make  extract 
for  tanning  leather,  may  be  of  assistance  in  pointing  out  the 
proper  remedy. 

The  chestnut  wood-  received  at  the  extract  factories  was  at 
first  supposed  to  be  all  alike  in  tanning  strength,  but  costly 
experience  proved  that  wood  from  good,  strong  lime,  shale  or 
limestone  lands  is  far  richer  in  tannin  than  wood  from  soils 
that  are  rocky,  sterile,  and  which  contain  little  lime.  This 
difference  is  so  marked  that  even  the  workmen  in  the  leach 
house  at  extract  plants  can  tell  when  M^ood  from  a  lime  shale 
or  limestone  region  is  being  leached,  simply  by  the  unusual  in- 
crease in  the  strength  of  the  liquors  obtained  from  such  wood. 
Chemical  analyses  proved  the  same  thing  beyond  all  question, 
that  in  order  for  chestnut  timber  to  attain  its  full  tannin 
strength,  it  must  grow  on  limestone  or  lime  shale  soil.  This 
is  not  a  secret  of  the  extract  trade,  but  a  trade  fact  that  extract 
manufacturers  want  the  public  to  know,  as  it  explains  why 
the  extract  manufacturer  will  take  wood  from  one  region,  but 
will  refuse  wood  from  some  other  locality,  where  analyses  of 
the  wood,  and  practical  results  in  the  leach  house  show  a  wide 
difference  in  the  yield  of  extract  per  cord  of  wood.  It  pays 
better  to  pay  freight  for  long  distances  to  obtain  wood  from  a 
lime  shale  or  limestone  region,  than  to  buy  wood  that  is  closer 
to  the  factory,  but  which  has  less  tannin. 

An  analysis  of  the  ashes  from  the  extract  factory  which  was 
made  at  State  College  in  the  Spring  of  1911  shows  that  there 
is  over  40  per  cent,  of  lime  in  the  ashes.  The  analysis  w^as  made 
with  a  view  of  selling  the  ashes  for  the  potash  they  were  sup- 
posed to  contain,  but  the  result  was  surprising  inasmuch  as 
the  analysis  showed  about  one-third  of  one  per  cent,  of  potash. 


230 

while  as  before  stated  it  showed  over  40  per  cent,  of  lime.  Is 
ii  not  a  remarkable  thiug  to  realize  that  a  chestnut  tree  wants 
120  times  as  much  lime  for  its  composition  as  it  does  of  potash? 
Another  fact  from  the  manufacturer's  costly  experience  with 
the  lime  in  extract  liquors  is  the  exx^ense  it  costs  him  to  keep 
the  oxalate  of  lime  which  is  leached  from  the  wood  from  coat- 
ing up  the  copper  tubes  in  the  evaporating  aj)paratus,  or  vacuum 
pans  as  they  are  called.  Oxalic  acid  has  a  powerful  affinity  for 
lime,  and  it  is  used  as  a  test  in  the  chemical  laboratories  to 
detect  the  presence  of  lime  in  a  solution.  In  the  boiling  down 
process  the  lime  combines  with  the  oxalic  acid  in  the  tan  liquors, 
and  it  is  precipitated  as  oxalate  of  lime,  and  coats  the  4,500 
tubes  of  the  evaporating  apparatus  with  a  coating  which  has 
to  be  removed  by  hammering  it  loose.  Acids  that  will  eat  the 
lime  oH  the  copper  tubes  will  also  eat  the  copper  of  the  pans, 
so  mechanical  and  other  means  must  be  used  to  keep  the  tubes 
free.  It  is  no  small  job  to  do  this;  and  while  the  constant 
presence  of  lime  in  chestnut  tan  liquors  is  one  of  the  drawbacks 
to  evaporating  liquors  economically,  the  fact  of  the  presence 
of  lime  in  the  liquors  is  regarded  as  a  good  sign  of  plenty  of 
tannin  in  the  wood. 

Now  the  writer  has  little  or  no  scientific  knowledge  of  the 
chestnut  blight,  further  than  having  seen  it  and  being  able  to 
recognize  it  in  the  woods,  but  would  suggest  for  your  further 
thought  and  consideration,  the  supposition  that  it  is  due  to  a 
lack  of  lime  in  the  soils  in  which  such  blighted  wood  is  grow- 
ing, and  that  a  blighted  tree  is  simply  a  tree  that  is  in  the  pro- 
cess of  being  starved  to  death  for  lack  of  lime.  If  this  is  true 
then  blighted  wood  A^all  be  found  on  soils  that  are  known  to 
lack  in  lime,  and  on  the  contrary  the  soils  where  the  chestnut 
tree  attains  its  greatest  size  and  age  will  be  found  on  analysis 
to  be  composed  of  a  considerable  proportion  of  lime. 

The  map  shown  in  this  convention  which  outlined  the  area 
in  which  the  chestnut  blight  is  at  its  worst,  shows  the  worst 
affected  area  to  be  in  the  vicinity  of  New  York  City,  Long 
Island,  portions  of  Connecticut,  New  Jersey,  and  Delaware. 
No  doubt  nearly  all  who  attend  this  convention  know  of  the 
palisades  of  the  Hudson,  and  how  little  lime  such  a  weather 
resisting  rock  is  likely  to  have.     The  sea  sands  of  New  Jersey, 


231 

Long  Island,  and  the  clays  soils  of  the  Connecticut  Valley, 
which  are  made  wp  of  the  granite  erosion  of  the  White  Moun- 
tains, all  yield  but  little  lime.  Granite  soils  yield  potash,  but 
our  analysis  shows  that  our  chestnut  tree  needs  120  times  as 
much  lime  as  potash.  It  was  brought  out  at  the  convention 
that  the  place  where  the  chestnut  trees  attained  the  greatest 
age  was  in  Eastern  Tennessee,  where  they  grew  to  the  immense 
size  of  six  feet  or  more  through.  If  you  will  take  a  geological 
map  of  Tennesee,  and  look  at  the  rock  formation  in  the  region 
of  Knoxville,  you  will  be  impressed  with  the  large  area  of  lime- 
stone and  lime  shale  outcrops  in  that  region.  Please  note  that 
it  was  also  stated  in  the  Convention  that  there  is  no  blight  as 
far  as  is  now  known  in  the  whole  State  of  Tennessee.  If  trees 
can  be  shown  there  that  are  500  years  old  and  free  from  blight, 
growing  on  a  lime  shale  or  limestone  soil,  it  will  go  far  to  sup- 
port our  supposition  that  the  blight  is  not  so  much  a  dread 
disease  that  threatens  to  sweep  away  our  native  chestnut  trees, 
as  it  is  an  evidence  that  blighted  trees  are  merely  trees  that  are 
starved  for  want  of  lime  in  the  soil  on  which  tlie  tree  is  growing. 
It  will  not  take  over  six  weeks  or  two  months  to  collect  sam- 
ples of  soils  from  every  state  represented  at  the  convention, 
and  analyze  them.  If  the  soil  where  the  blighted  trees  are 
growing  show  o'n  analysis  a  low  lime  content,  as  against  a 
high  lime  content  where  the  trees  grow  large,  then  we  will  know 
almost  beyond  the  shadow  of  a  doubt  that  the  blight  is  most 
likely  to  be  caused  by  lack  of  lime,  but  in  order  to  fully  prove 
the  supposition,  /  would  recommend  that  solutions  of  lime  water 
he  soaked  into  the  ground  thoroughly  around  trees  known  to  he 
affected  toith  the  blight,  and  soak  the  ground,  around  the  trees 
as  far  as  the  branches  above  extend  out.  Soak  the  ground  thor- 
oughly for  a  distance  of  two  or  three  feet  down,  so  that  every 
root  big  and  little  will  get  a  little  lime  in  solution  in  lohich  shape 
it  is  readily  taken  up  by  the  roots.  Then  spray  the  trees  above 
with  the  Bordeaux  mixture  as  well.  The  reason  why  I  recom- 
mend lime  water  solution  soaked  into  the  ground,  instead  of 
scattering  lime  around  under  the  trees  is  this :  It  is  known 
that  the  sap  in  blighted  trees  is  sour;  this  sourness  is  not  the 
natural  sourness  of  tannic  acid,  but  an  abnormal  sourness; 
therefore  every  little  fibre  and  rootlet  must  be  fed  lime  to  cor- 


232 

rect  the  sourness  of  the  sap,  and  cause  a  normal,  healthy  sap 
to  flow  or  start  this  spring  before  the  leaves  come  out.  Lime 
scattered  on  the  ground  under  the  trees  would  do  the  same  thing 
in  time,  but  it  would  take  months  for  occassional  rains  to  soak 
the  lime  down  to  the  roots. 

What  we  are  particularly  interested  in  at  this  time  is  to  get 
positive  evidence  into  the  hands  of  the  convention  officers  as 
soon  as  possible ;  hence  I  recommend  the  lime  water  test  in  order 
to  get  quicker  and  more  positive  results,  rather  than  the  plan 
of  scattering  lime  under  the  trees  which  is  less  costly  than 
the  lime  water  plan.  Water  takes  uj)  only  one  seven-hundredth 
j)art  of  its  weight  of  lime;  80  pounds  of  lime,  costing  about  10 
to  12  cents  wholesale,  will  therefore  make  56,000  pounds  of 
lime  water,  or  28  tons.  The  lime  would  cost  less  than  the  labor 
of  getting  the  water,  but  for  the  purpose  of  getting  positive  evi- 
dence soon  it  is  here  recommended. 

If  the  tree  grows  a  longer  set  of  sprouts  this  coming  summer 
than  it  did  last  summer,  or  if  the  leaves  are  a  more  healthy 
color,  then  the  wliole  case  will  have  been  fully  proved  that  we 
have  a  specific  for  the  blight  disease,  and  it  will  no  longer  have 
any  terrors  for  us.  We  will  be  able  to  preserve  the  trees  we 
now  have,  as  well  as  cultivate  them  to  advantage  wherever  we 
like,  if  we  choose  to  go  to  the  expense  of  applying  the  lime  arti- 
ficially. 

From  the  extract  makers  point  of  view,  I  would  like  to  see 
the  general  law  proved  by  experiment  that  all  trees  having  a 
high  percentage  of  tannin  in  their  bark  or  wood,  or  both,  require 
lime  for  their  vigorous  growth.  For  instance,  the  bark  of  the 
pear  tree  is  known  to  contain  a  fair  percentage  of  tannin.  If 
the  tree  blights,  is  it  due  to  a  lack  of  lime  in  the  soil?  or  is  it 
from  some  other  cause?  Will  the  bark  of  the  pear  tree  show 
a  high  percentage  of  lime  on  analysis?  If  this  should  prove  to 
be  the  case  then  the  Horticultural  Department  of  the  State  will 
be  in  possession  of  a  valuable  fact,  and  the  extract  maker  will 
know  to  a  certainty  just  what  localities  are  the  best  in  which 
to  locate  an  extract  factory,  by  studying  a  geological  map  show- 
ing the  limestone  and  lime  shale  outcrops,  and  locating  all  sorts 
of  tannin  producing  trees  that  he  may  wish  to  utilize  in  the 
future.    We  already  know  that  the  bark  of  the  rock  oak  which 


233 

contains  37  per  cent,  of  lime  in  the  aslies  of  the  bark,  and  there 
seems  to, be  a  general  law  in  nature  that  tannin  bearing  trees 
must  have  lime  in  greater  quantities  than  other  trees. 

The  first  few  analyses  of  the  soils  where  blighted  chestnut 
is  growing  will  put  the  Forestry  Departments  of  the  states 
represented  at  the  convention  in  position  to  know  in  a  few 
weeks  whether  this  supposition  of  a  lack  of  lime  in  the  soils  in 
blighted  tree  areas  is  borne  out  by  facts.  If  it  is  found  to  be 
so,  then  the  costly  and  irritating  job  of  forcing  reluctant  owners 
of  blighted  chestnut  trees  into  cutting  them  down  at  their  own 
expense  will  have  been  avoided,  and  a  policy  of  preservation 
adopted  in  its  place.  The  latter  policy  Avill  be  much  easier  to 
put  in  force,  as  it  Avill  have  the  hearty  co-oxDeration  of  the  public, 
in  the  generous  efforts  of  the  states  to  assist  owners  of  blighted 
trees  to  save  them.  If  the  Forestry  Departments  can  be  put 
in  possession  of  a  proper  remedy  for  the  blight  by  this  single 
convention,  it  will  emphasize  the  value* of  such  conventions, 
and  demonstate  the  wisdom  of  the  legislators  of  this  State, 
who  so  far-sightedly  made  the  convention  possible  by  their 
appropriation, 

FIELD  WORK  OF  THE  CHESTNUT  TREE  BLIGHT  COM- 
MISSION. 


By  THOMAS   E.   FRANCIS,   FIELD   SUPERVISOR. 

During  the  six  months  the  field  force  has  been  at  work,  the 
field  agents  have  been  trained  and  organized,  and  the  general 
line  of  western  advance  determined.  Owners  of  infected  wood- 
lots,  and  the  public  generally  have  been  warned  of  the  existence 
of  the  disease. 

The  general  plan  wliicli  has  been  followed  is  to  place  one 
man  in  charge  of  tlie  work  in  a  county,  under  the  direction  of 
the  field  supervisor.  The  man  in  charge  of  the  county  usually 
has  an  assistant,  and  the  two  work  out  from  the  same  head- 
quarters but  cover  different  territory.  When  one  community 
has  been  carefully  scouted  for  the  blight,  the  men  move  to  an 
adjoining  district,  and  in  this  way  cover  the  county.  In  the 
meanwhile,  timber  owners  are  interviewed  and  the  subject  is 


234 

called  to  the  attention  of  the  public  by  means  of  field  meetings, 
lectures,  talks  before  Farmers'  Institutes,  Grange  meetings,  and 
the  like. 

The  work  from  early  September  until  December  consisted 
almost  entirely  of  scouting  for  the  disease.  Later  in  the  season, 
the  field  agents  marked  trees  for  removal  and  devoted  much 
iime  to  meetings  with  timber  owners  in  the  field,  and  general 
educational  work.  The  most  important  result  of  our  field  work, 
is  the  interest  and  spirit  of  active  co-operation  we  have  aroused 
among  the  owners  of  wood-lots  in  areas  where  the  chestmic 
tree  bark  disease  has  been  found.  The  spirit  has  been  arotised 
by  the  activity  and  honest  efforts  of  otir  field  men.  Their  in- 
spections have  been  thoroughly  and  carefully  made,  and  their 
talks  at  local  instittites,  grange,  and  special  meetings  called 
for  the  purpose  of  discussing  the  chestnut  tree  bark  disease, 
have  been  instructive  and  interesting.  These  meetings  have 
been  well  advertised '  locally  and  well  attended.  In  Fulton, 
Franklin,  Huntingdon,  Bedford,  Mifflin,  Blair,  Centre,  and 
Snyder  counties  I  have  personally  attended  and  addressed  meet- 
ings called  by  the  local  field  men,  at  which  the  attendance  ranged 
from  forty  to  two  hundred  and  fifty  woodland  owners  and  inter- 
ested persons.  At  these  meetings  a  lively  interest  was  shown, 
and  at  everj^  meeting  promises  of  active  co-operation  and  help 
in  locating  and  eradicating  the  disease,  if  found,  have  been 
given.  Not  a  single  instance  of  antagonism  to  our  work  and 
methods  has  come  under  my  observation,  and  following  every 
meeting,  requests  have  come  to  us  for  the  inspection  of  individual 
tracts,  shoAving  that  the  woodland  owners  not  onh^  approve  our 
methods,  but  are  anxious  for  an  opportunity  to  do  their  part 
in  assisting  with  our  work.  In  fact,  many  cases  of  blight  have 
been  found  and  reported  by  owners  as  a  result  of  instruction 
received  at  these  meetings. 

Judges,  school  teachers,  ministers,  farmers,  business  men, 
iuid  prominent  men  interested  in  the  welfare  of  the  State  have 
addressed  our  meetings  and  expressed  their  approval  of  our 
work.  As  direct  evidence  of  willing  co-operation,  fifty-seven 
woodland  owners  in  the  previously  named  counties  have  removed 
and  properly  burned  eight  hundred  and  thirty-six  infected  trees 
and  stumps  from  December  1,  1911  to  February  15,  1912.     In 


235 

every  case,  an  explanation  of  the  object  of  our  work  has  secured 
voluntary  action  on  the  part  of  the  owners.  This  is  the  best 
evidence  that  the  people  of  the  State  are  interested,  and  will 
accord  us  the  strong  co-operation  which  is  essential  to  carry  out 
successfully  the  proposed  plan  of  controlling  the  disease. 


A  KEPOET  ON  SCOUT  WOKK  ON  THE  NOKTH  BENCH 
OF  BALD  EAGLE  MOUNTAIN,  BETWEEN  SYLVAN 
DELL  AND  WILLLiMSFOET,  LYCOMING  COUNTY, 
PA. 


By  H.  E.  WELLS,  FIELD  SUPERVISOR. 

In  order  to  determine  as  nearly  as  possible  the  number  of 
cases  of  infection  existing  in  Sylvan  Dell  Park  and  the  bench 
land  along  the  north  slope  of  the  Bald  Eagle  Mountain,  a  care- 
ful ijispection  was  begun  at  Sylvan  Dell.  The  park  land  was 
chosen  on  account  of  the  assured  co-operation  of  Mr.  F.  B. 
Thrall,  president  of  the  club,  and  the  members  of  the  Associa- 
tion. 

The  work  of  felling  infected  trees  and  burning  the  bark  and 
brush  was  carefully  done,  and  because  of  the  nearness  of  the 
park  to  the  road,  many  interested  persons  had  an  opportunity 
to  see  the  blight  and  practical  methods  of  control. 

Seventy-five  acres  of  park  land  were  inspected.  Twenty-five 
acres  had  been  previously  gone  over  in  a  very  thorough  manner 
during  the  last  two  years,  and  all  dead,  dying,  or  defective  trees, 
together  with  brush,  undergrowth,  and  all  forest  weeds,  were 
removed.  The  result  is  an  open,  clean  looking,  thrifty  stand; 
and,  most  significant  of  all,  hut  one  infected  tree  could  he  found. 
This  tree  was  a  large  one,  fifteen  inches  in  diameter,  growing 
close  to  the  road  through  the  park,  and  but  slightly  infected. 
The  remaining  fifty  acres  lie  in  the  eastern  part  of  the  park 
and  from  a  forestal  point  of  view,  are  in  a  run-down  condition. 

No  care  or  management  has  been  given  the  fifty-acre  portion 
of  the  park,  and  the  blight,  as  well  as  many  other  fungous 
diseases,  have  had  full  opportunity  to  thrive  unchecked.  It 
^vsiB  an  admirable  place  in  which  to  study  the  blight,  for  it  was 
present  in  every  stage  of  development.    Sprouts,  saplings,  young 


236 

thrifty  trees,  as  well  as  old,  over-mature  standards  were  found 
infected.  The  forest  floor  is  mostly  rocks,  there  being  little  or 
no  soil  cover  at  all.  The  chestnut  runs  about  40  per  cent,  of 
the  stand,  with  25  per  cent,  rock  oak,  and  the  remainder  a  mix- 
ture of  red,  black,  and  white  oak. 

The  majority  of.  the  infections  apparently  started  in  the  tops. 
Some  trees  had  to  be  climbed  to  identify  the  infection.  In  most 
cases  the  characteristic  appearance  of  persistent  leaves  on 
girdled  branches  or  on  infected  sprouts  below,  large  lesions  or 
blisters  which  have  girdled  the  trunk,  were  sufficient  to  remove 
doubt  as  to  whether  the  tree  had  blight. 

It  may  be  said  here  that  in  scout  work  the  closest  observation 
must  be  given  to  all  suspicious  trees,  or  trees  with  danger  sig- 
nals. The  most  conspicuous  danger  signals  in  summer  or  winter 
are  the  persistent  dead  leaves.  In  summer,  these  leaves  are 
light  yellow  in  color,  in  contrast  with  the  healthy  green  leaves. 
As  they  are  killed  slowly  by  a  gradual  stoppage  of  sap,  they 
remain  rather  flattened  instead  of  curling  and  wrinkling  as  do 
leaves  killed  by  frost  in  the  fall.  Their  color  is  about  the  same 
in  summer  as  that  of  persistent  leaves  in  winter  killed  by  frost 
and  causes  other  than  the  blight.  This  yellowish  shade  tinged 
with  a  greenish  hue  like  that  of  hay  in  the  mow,  often  lasts  long 
into  the  winter.  Generally,  though,  the  persistent  leaves  in 
winter  are  of  a  distinctly  red  rusty  brown  color,  curled,  twisted, 
frayed,  and  blown  to  shreds  on  the  edges.  On  an  infected  or 
girdled  branch,  the  leaves  are  persistent.  In  a  healthy  limb, 
when  sap  action  stops  in  the  fall,  little  corky  layers  are  formed 
at  the  l)ase  of  the  leaf  stem,  and  the  leaf  splits  off  at  this  point. 
In  a  diseased  limb,  the  sap  is  held  up  and  the  leaf  is  not  cut  off 
by  the  corky  layers. 

With  the  leaves,  small  undeveloped  and  unopened  burs  are 
often  seen.  In  some  instances  trees  are  found  with  almost  every 
bur  remaining,  closed  and  nearly  full  size.  The  burs  are  dark 
in  color  and  blend  with  the  color  of  the  leaves.  If  the  burs  are 
few  in  number  and  scattered,  especially  if  open,  the  chances  of 
blight  being  present  are  small. 

Another  characteristic  danger  signal  is  the  growth  of  suckers 
or  sprouts  in  a  ring  on  girdle  below  a  blister  or  lesion,  extend- 
ing around  the  tree.    The  upward  flow  of  the  sap  being  stopped. 


237 

the  tendency  is  to  pnt  out  tliese  laterals.  These  sprouts  are 
almost  always  infected  and  quickly  girdled,  so  in  late  fall  or 
winter,  a  tree  with  suspicious  persistent  leaves  and  burs  in  the 
top  and  leaves  on  lateral  shoots,  is  very  apt  to  be  infected. 

As  was  said,  apparently  most  infection  started  at  the  tops 
of  the  trees  as  evidenced  by  the  appearance  of  the  leaves,  etc. 
Yet  many  large  trees  were  found  to  be  infected  upon  a  careful 
tree  to  tree  examination,  at  the  base,  and  the  only  visible  out- 
ward sign  of  the  blight  was  the  reddish  yellow  pustules,  forming 
in  the  deep  fissures  of  the  bark,  where  the  new  inner  bark  is 
breaking  through.  Upon  cutting  into  this  region,  the  diseased, 
discolored  inner  bark  next  the  wood  was  found  filled  with  the 
mycelium  of  the  fungus. 

On  old  trees  it  takes  more  time  for  the  disease  to  appear  on 
the  outer  surface  of  the  bark  in  the  form  of  pustules,  and  often 
a  well  defined  blister  of  mycelium  is  found  on  the  inside  of  the 
bark  showing  no  sign  of  its  presence  on  the  outside.  For  this 
reason  the  complete  peeling  and  burning  of  the  bark  on  the 
trunk  of  a  tree  that  is  going  to  be  used  is  essential. 

In  the  inspection  work  that  was  carried  on,  specimens  show- 
ing the  blight  in  various  stages  and  under  different  conditions 
were  found,  and  among  them,  one  in  particular  is  worth  men- 
tioning. A  large  blister  nearly  a  foot  in  diamter  was  discovered 
and  a  great  many  of  the  pustules  were  rubbed  off  or  destroyed. 
All  over  the  surface  of  the  lesion  were  numerous  holes  made 
apparently  by  wood-peckers,  probably  in  search  of  the  insect 
larvae  that  are  commonly  found  under  dead  bark.  Is  it  not 
possible  for  these  birds  to  get  spores  on  their  feet  and  bills, 
carry  them  to  other  trees  which  may  not  be  infected,  and  upon 
searching  in  that  bark  for  more  insects,  thus  deposit  spores 
of  the  blight? 

The  infections  found  in  the  park  numbered  thirty,  twenty-nine 
of  which  are  in  the  part  that  has  been  alloioed  to  go  without 
managetnent  of  any  kind.  In  the  first  inspection  made  of  the 
park  last  fall  only  three  or  four  trees  were  found  to  be  infected. 
Accordingly,  on  finding  so  much  infection  here  it  was  decided 
to  make  a  careful  strip  survey  of  the  bench  land  lying  between 
the  State  reserve  on  the  north  side  of  Bald  Eagle  Mountain, 
and   the   Susquehanna  river.     The  tracts  are   mostly  farmers' 


woodlots,  ranging  in  size  from  a  few  acres  np  to  several  hun- 
dred acres.  The  soil  is  poor  there  and  rocky,  and  gets  poorer 
in  quality  closer  to  the  mountain.  The  stands  are  in  about  the 
same  condition  as  the  eastern  portion  of  the  park,  except  where 
some  cutting  has  been  done,  and  here  the  brush  and  growth  of 
forest  weeds  is  very  dense.  The  chestnut  runs  from  20  per  cent, 
to  40  per  cent,  of  the  stand,  and  chestnut  oak  is  present  together 
with  red,  black,  and  white  oaks. 

In  direct  contrast  with  the  condition  found  in  this  portion 
of  Sylvan  Dell  Park  is  the  condition  observed  on  the  Fish  and 
Grame  Preserve  owned  by  the  Jay  Cooke  Estate.  This  property 
is  several  hundred  acres  in  extent  but  only  about  one  hundred 
acres  have  been  inspected.  This  portion  of  the  tract  is  located 
four  miles  northeast  from  Waterville  in  Cummings  township, 
in  the  west-central  part  of  Lycoming  county.  The  timber  is 
fully  90  per  cent,  chestnut  and  is  a  clean,  thrifty  young  pole 
stand  averaging  six  to  ten  inches  in  diamter,  with  250  trees  to 
the  acre.  On  less  than  live  acres  fully  thirty  trees  Avere  found 
to  be  infected  with  blight.  The  characteristic  persistent  leaves 
of  last  summer  were  present  in  every  case,  but  pustules  were 
visible  only  at  a  height  of  ten  to  twelve  feet.  As  was  stated, 
the  trees  are  unusually  healthy  and  thrifty  in  appearance  and 
no  signs  of  insect  work  were  found.  This  center  is,  at  the  pres- 
ent time,  the  most  northwesterly  infection  known. 

The  map  accompanying  this  report  gives  the  relative  size  of 
the  tracts,  and  shows  approximately  the  centers  of  infection  by 
a  cross  in  a  circle.  The  numerals  indicate  the  number  of  trees 
in  the  center. 

The  most  typical  center  or  spot  infection  was  found  on  the 
southwest  corner  of  the  Hamm  tract  (see  map).  There  is  tim- 
ber all  around  this  point,  except  on  the  west  and  northwest. 
On  the  west  it  is  cut  over,  and  a  young  second  growth  of  saplings 
is  present,  while  on  the  northwest  is  a  cleared  field.  The  real 
center  of  this  spot  was  a  large  tree  about  sixteen  inches  in  diam- 
eter, infected  from  top  to  bottom.  The  bark  was  fairly  plastered 
with  pustules  and  all  of  the  young  saplings  (of  which  there 
were  three  or  four  growing  from  the  base),  were  badly  infected. 
It  seems  reasonable  to  suppose  that  this  infc^ction  lias  been 
present  for  two  or  three  years. 


23d 

Infections  of  every  kind  were  fonnd  at  varying  distances  from 
this  badly  infected  tree.  Fifty  feet  away,  two  saplings,  six 
inches  in  diameter,  were  found,  upon  climbing,  to  be  infected, 
and  the  only  sign  of  the  blight  at  a  distance  was  a  cluster  of  dead 
leaves  on  a  terminal  shoot.  On  climbing,  a  blister  about  four 
inches  in  diameter  was  found,  but  pustules  had  not  been  formed, 
the  infection  having  been  caused  probably  late  last  summer. 
This  lesion  was  about  ten  feet  from  the  very  tip  of  the  leader. 
It  was  found  to  be  girdled  and  pustules  were  present  at  the 
beginning  of  last  year's  growth. 

A  short  distance  away  a  little  to  the  southeast,  a  small  tree, 
six  inches  in  diameter,  was  found  infected  only  at  the  base. 
Another  tree  one  hundred  feet  west  in  the  cut-over  area  was 
badly  infected.  This  tree  was  dead,  having  been  girdled  with 
an  axe,  and  the  ring  of  bark  removed;  but  the  blight  was  fully 
developed  and  the  bark  was  covered  with  pustules  above  the 
portion  of  the  tree   girdled  by  the  axe. 

The  largest  center  was  found  on  the  Keefer  tract  (see  map). 
Here  twenty-three  trees,  all  saplings,  were  found  on  a  circular 
spot  fifty  yards  in  diamter.  Only  one  other  tree  was  found 
outside  this  center,  and  that  at  the  extreme  southern  end  of  the 
tract. 

Another  center  less  than  a  quarter  of  a  mile  east  from  the 
first  center  described,  was  found  on  the  line  between  Hamm 
and  Stuempfle,  and  the  most  badly  infected  tree  was  one  10  to 
12  inches  in  diameter,  to  which  the  wires  of  the  fence  were 
nailed.  The  tree  was  dead,  and  the  tunnels  of  borers  and  the 
larvae  in  them  were  found.  This  tree  showed  very  well  the 
appearance  of  the  blight  on  old  bark,  and  from  it  several  good 
sections  were  obtained.  Around  this  tree  the  young  sprouts 
and  two  saplings,  four  inches  in  diameter,  were  badly  infected. 

The  strip  was  worked,  in  the  manner  indicated,  and  when  a 
center  was  found,  every  tree  within  a  varying  radius  depending 
on  the  size  of  the  center  was  carefully  examined  until  no  more 
trees  could  be  found  that  were  infected.  Often  at  the  outer 
limits  of  one  center  the  edge  of  another  center  Avould  be  en- 
countered, and  this  new  spot  would  be  studied  in  the  same  way. 
Here  an'd  there,  scattering  cases  of  infection  were  found,  not 


240 

in  a  center,  though  perhaps  the  source  of  the  infection  was  one. 
These  are  shown  on  the  map  as  small  circles  without  a  cross. 

In  the  same  way  a  careful  inspection  of  the  Fisher  and  Savidge 
tract  has  been  carried  on.  Messrs.  Fisher  and  Savidge  of  Wil- 
liamsport  and  Sunbury  respectively,  have  planned  to  cut  off 
and  graft  with  Paragon  scions,  the  natural  stock  on  550  acres 
of  land  located  one  mile  west  of  Essick  Heights.  This  land 
is  admirably  adapted  to  the  optimum  growth  of  chestnut,  and 
in  fact,  in  some  portions  of  the  tract,  which  comprises  in  all 
640  acres,  nothing  else  grows.  The  stand  is  dense  young  sap- 
ling sprouts  12  to  15  years  of  age,  though  here  and  there  patches 
of  old  mature  timber  are  found.  The  purity  and  density  of  the 
stand,  however,  without  a  doubt  accounts  for  the  number  of 
infections  present,  which  exceeds  greatly  any  condition  here- 
tofore found  in  Lycoming  county. 

The  first  spot  or  center  was  found  not  over  100  yards  west 
from  the  house  of  G.  H.  Newman  (on  map),  and  it  is  definitely 
known  that  summer  before  last  wild  doves  roosted  here  and 
that  they  flew  in  here  whenever  disturbed.  Adjoining  was  a 
field  of  buckwheat  where  they  were  in  the  habit  of  feeding.  The 
infection  or  center  was  entirely  on  a  tract  of  less  than  one-fourth 
acre  in  size  and  the  trees  were  nearly  all  thoroughly  infected, 
mostly  in  the  tops.  Several  trees  showed  persistent  leaves  in 
the  tops,  but  otherwise  there  were  no  signs  of  the  blight.  Upon 
climbing  these  trees  the  first  stages  of  the  blight  were  found 
in  a  slight  splitting  of  the  bark  together  with  a  few  pustules 
just  beginning  to  become  visible.  It  seems  likely,  therefore, 
to  suppose  that  this  infection  was  carried  here  by  these  birds, 
or  at  least  that  it  was  spread  locally  by  them  to  other  centers 
near  at  hand.  In  all  nearly  400  trees  were  found  to  be  infected, 
and  these  were  found  grouped  in  six  or  eight  centers.  Very 
effective  co-operation  is  being  given  the  Commission  by  the 
owners  of  these  tracts  in  this  region.  HoAvever,  there  is  a  solid 
strip  of  chestnut  timber  four  to  five  miles  wide  and  eight  to  ten 
miles  long,  stretching  from  the  Ogdonia  dow^n  the  Loyalsock 
Creek.  It  will  be  impracticable  to  attempt  to  scout  this  region 
this  winter, -but  with  the  opening  up  of  spring,  by  placing  a 


241 

crew  of  four  or  five  men  in  here  under  the  direction  of  a  man 
familiar  with  the  territory,  the  whole  region  will  be  carefully 
ycouted. 

All  known  infections  will  be  destroyed  and  the  men  working 
in  this  territory  cutting  tannery  wood,  are  thoroughly  familiar 
with  the  appearance,  spread,  and  danger  of  the  disease,  so  that 
we  can  look  for  local  assistance,  and  that  in  the  end  is  the  aim 
of  our  work. 

In  conclusion,  taking  everything  into  consideration,  good 
results  have  been  obtained  by  winter  work.  Persistent  leaves 
are  visible  to  a  trained  eye  for  long  distances  through  the  woods. 
However,  deep  snow  or  a  covering  of  sleet  interferes  with  the 
finding  of  pustules  at  the  base  of  the  tree.  Their  dying  branches 
begin  to  show  most  prominently  during  late  summer,  hence 
August  and  early  September  is  the  ideal  time  for  scouting  work. 

The  strip  along  the  river  actually  inspected  contains  452 
acres,  and  this  was  covered  in  about  a  month  of  actual  inspection, 
for  considerable  time  was  used  up  in  superintending  the  removal 
of  infected  trees. 

A  fair  estimate  is  4  acres  per  day  per  man  for  a  close  inspec- 
tion, working  the  tract  in  T>0  feet  strips.  In  a  very  close  tree 
to  tree  winter  inspection,  two  men  can  cover  four  to  five  acres 
or  two  to  two  and  a  half  acres  per  day  per  man. 


LONGEVITY  OF  LIFE  OF  SPORES. 


The  following  report  is  submitted  in  response  to  the  request 
of  Mr.  E.  A.  Weimer,  that  an  attempt  be  made  to  germinate 
spores  from  an  infected  piece  of  chestnut,  collected  in  Monroe 
county  in  July,  1908,  and  continuously  kept  in  a  moist  cell  at 
the  Department  of  Forestry  since  that  date.  Forty-four  months 
after  the  time  of  collecting,  the  status  of  the  fungu-s  is  fouud 
to  be  as  below : 

16 


242 
"Philadelphia,  April  19,  1912. 


Mr.  I.  0.  Williams, 


Deputy  Commissioner  of  Forestry, 
Harrisburg,  Pa. 

Dear  Mr.  Williams:  In  reply  to  your  letter  of  April  18,  I 
can  give  you  the  following  report: 

The  fungus  on  your  specimen  made  a  small  growth  as  I  at 
first  reported  to  you.  After  however,  it  had  started  to  produce 
a  small  number  of  picnidia  it  ceased  to  groAV.  I  then  began 
again,  and  found  that  I  could  cause  the  spores  to  germinate. 
They  in  turn  made  but  a  small  growth,  and  afterward  were 
unable  to  produce  any  fruiting  picnidia.  A  small  part  of  the 
bark  which  I  removed  from  your  specimen  was  put  in  a  damp 
chamber.  I  was  unable  to  get  any  growth  at  all  from  this.  This 
shows  that  the  specimen  has  almost  lost  life.  This  loss  of 
vitality  may  be  due  to  the  Penicillium,  a  fungus  which  has 
covered  the  surface  of  this  specimen.  I  T\ill  return  the  speci- 
men in  the  bottle  to  you  at  once. 

Very  truly  yours, 
(Signed)  CAKOLINE  KUMBOLD." 


EEGISTERED  DELEGATES  AND  GUESTS. 


The  following  names  and  addresses  appear  on  the  official 
register  of  delegates  and  guests  in  attendance  at  the  Conference. 
It  is  a  matter  of  regret  that  a  large  number  of  those  in  attendance 
failed  to  register,  although  indicating  their  active  interest  by 
their  presence  at  one  or  more  sessions. 

Daniel  Adams,  301  Crozier  Bldg.,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,   (Lumbermen's  Ex.) 

Prof.  Geo.  G.  Atwood,  Albany,  N.  Y. 

Dr.  J.  M.  Backenstoe,  Emaus,  Pa. 

Prof.  H.  P.  Baker,  Forester,  State  College,  Pa. 

Parker  Thayer  Barnes,  Harrisburg,   Pa. 

Prof.  Geo.  L.  Barrus,  Albany,  N.  Y. 


243 

H.  H.  Bechtel,  Cincinnati,  Ohio. 

George  Bell,  Marysville,  Pa. 

F.  W.  Besley,  John  Hopkins  Univ.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

John  Birkinbine,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

W.  F.  Blair,  Waynesburg,  Pa. 

Rep.  Bloodgood  Nurseries,  Flushing,  N.  Y. 

Samuel  T.  Bodine,  Villa  Nova,  Pa. 

John  Y.  Boyd,  222  Market  St.,  Harrisburg,  Pa. 

H.  F.  Bright,  Ashland,  Pa. 

H.  R.  Bristol,  Plattsburg,  N.  Y. 

Wm.  McC.  Brown,  Oakland,  Md. 

Henry  G.  Bryant,  2013  Walnut  St.,  Phila., 

Geo.  H.  Campbell,  B.  &  O.  R.  R.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Chester  E.  Child,  Pres.  Lumber  Mfrs.  Assn.,  Putman,  Conn 

Prof.  W.  D.  Clark,  State  College,  Pa. 

Dr.   Geo.  P.  Clinton,  Conn.  Agr.  Exp't.   Station,  New  Haven.   Conn 

S.  C.  demons,  431  Dearborn  St.,  Chicago,  111. 

B.  F.  Cocklin,  Mechanicsburg,  R.  F.  D.,  No.  2,  Cumb.  Co.,  Pa. 

Prof.  J.  Franklin  Collins,  Washington,  D.  C. 

W.  G.  Conklin,  Troxelville,  Pa. 

Hon.  Robert  S.  Conklin,  Commissioner  of  Forestry,  Harrisburg.   I'a 

Dr.  M.  T.  Cook,  New  Brunswick,  N.  J.. 

W.  C.  Coombe,  Millerstown,  Pa. 

Geo.  F.  Craig,  Rosemont,  Pa. 

J.  C.  Cramner,  Lehigh  University,  South  Bethlehem,  Pa. 

Hon.  J.  W.  Crawford,  North  Bend,  Pa. 

H.  W.  Crawford,  Conestoga  Traction  Co.,  Lancaster,  Pa. 

W.  A.  Crawford,  Cooperstown,  Pa. 

Hon.  Wm.  T.  Creasy,  Master  State  Grange,  Catawissa,  Pa. 

Hon.  N.  B.  Critchtield,  Secy,  or  Agriculture,  Harrisburg,  Pa. 

S.  L.  Cummings,  Dewart,  Northumberland  Co.,  Pa. 

Prof.  Nelson  Fithian  Davis,  Bucknell  University,  Lewisburg,  Pa. 

Jos.  W.  Derrick,  care  of  Harison  Townsend,  10th  and  Chestnut,  Phila. 

S.  B.  Detwiler,  Executive  Officer,  C.  B.  Comm'n.,  Bala,  Pa. 

Mrs.  S.  B.  Detwiler,  Bala,  Pa. 

Dr.  Samuel  G.  Dixon,  State  Health  Comm'r.,  1900  Race  St.,  Phila. 

Dr.  Henry  S.  Drinker,  Pres.  Lehigh  University,  South  Bethlehem,  Pa. 

Hon.  John  J.  Dunn,  Board  of  Agriculture,  Providence,  R.  I. 

S.  B.  Elliott,  Reynoldsville,  Pa. 

Elwanger  &  Bro.,  Pottstown,  Pa. 

Dr.  J.  B.  Emerson,  40  E.  41st  St.,  New  York  City. 

S.  B.  Enterline,  Pottsville,  Pa. 

Samuel  L.  Eslinger,  Lemoyne,  Cumb.  Co.,  Pa. 

J.  K.  Esser,  Field  Agt.  Chestnut  Tree  Blight  Comm.,  Mauch  Chunk,  Pa. 

Thomas  Evans,  Lebanon,  Pa. 

Hon.  A.  B.  Farquhar,  Pres.  Penna.  Conservation  Asso.,  York,  Pa. 

P.  S.  Fenstermacher,  Supt.  Trexler  Farms,  Allentown,  Pa. 

F.  R.   Fertig,   State  Horticultural    Inspector,   Lebanon,   Pa. 

Rep.  F.  &  F.  Nurseries,  Springfield,  N.  J. 

F.  W.  Finger,  Philadelhpia,  Pa. 

W.  Righter  Fisher,  Bryn  Mawr,  Pa. 

Dr.  Wm.  R.  Fisher,  Swiftwater,  Pa. 

J.  W.  Fisher,  Newport,  Tenn. 


244 

Dr.  A.  K.  Fisher,  Bureau  of  Biological  Survey,  Washington,  D.  C. 

Amos  Fleisher,  Newport,  Pa. 

P.  Hartman  Fox,  Austin,  Pa. 

James  G.  Fox,  Hummelstown,  Pa. 

W.  W.  Frazier,  250  S.  18th  St.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Thomas  E.  Francis,  Field  Agt.  C.  T.  B.  Ck)mm'n.,  Huntingdon,  Pa. 

Prof.  H.  R.  Fulton,  State  College,  Pa. 

Blair  Funk,  Pequea  Creek,  Pa. 

W.  H.  Gardner,  Basic  City,  Va. 

Samuel  R.  Gault,  Harrisburg,  Pa. 

Dr.  N.  J.  Giddings,  Morgantown,  W.  Va. 

J.  M.  Goodloe,  Bigstone  Gap,  Va. 

C.  E.  Gosline,  Paterson,  N.  J. 

Prof.  Arthur  H.  Graves,  Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

E.  M.  Green,  Mt.  Union  Tanning  and  Extract  Co.,  Mt.  Union,  Pa. 

W.  E.  Grove,  York  Springs,  Pa. 

Melvin  Guptill,  Maiden,  Mass. 

Dr.  H.  T.  Gussow,  Ottawa,  Canada. 

Miss  Mary  M.  Haines,  Cheltenham,  Pa. 

Robert  B.  Haines  Co.,  Cheltenham,  Pa. 

Robert  W.  Hall,  Lehigh  University,  South  Bethlehem,  Pa. 

James  L.  Hamill,  Columbus,  Ohio. 

J.  Linn  Harris,  Bellefonte,  Pa. 

Dr.  J.  W.  Harshberger,  4839  Walton  Ave.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

D.  S.  Hartline,  Bloomsburg,  Pa. 

W.  Elmer  Houpt,  Shippensburg,  Pa. 

Henry  Hawk,  903  16th  Avenue,  Altoona,  Pa. 

L.  E.  Hess,  Berwick,  Pa. 

John  K.  Hibbs,  Field  Agt.  C.  T.  B.  Comm'n.,  Philadelphia. 

Dr.  Samuel  S.  Hill,  Supt.  Chronic  Insane  Asylum,  Wernersville,  Pa. 

G.  H.  Hollister,  Hartford,  Conn. 

J.  E.  Holme,  care  of  England,  Walton  Co.,  3rd  and  Vine,  Phila. 

E.  A.  Hoopes,  Moylan,  Pa. 

Dr.  A.  D.  Hopkins,  Bureau  of  Entomology,  Washington,  D.  C. 
John  Hosfeld,  Shippensburg,  Pa. 
Hon.  Josiah  Howard,  Emporium,  Pa. 
Geo.  G.  Hutchinson,  Warrior's  Mark,  Pa. 

F.  B.  Jewett,  Brooklyn,  Pa. 

Henry  C.  Johnson  &  Co.,  Luzerne,  Pa. 

Joseph  Johnston,  3940,  Lancaster  Ave.,  Phila. 

Miss  Florence  M.  Jones,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Miss  Martha  Jones,  Conshohocken,  Pa. 

Hon.  George  B.  Keezell,  Keezeltown,  Va. 

George  W.  Kehr,  Pa.  State  Branch  Nat.  Con.  Asso.,  Harrisburg. 

George  A.  Kerr,  care  of  John  H.  Heald  &  Co.,  Lynchburg,  Va. 

W.  S.  W.  Kirby,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Theodore  Klein,  Ariel,  Pa. 

William  Kline,  West  Hanover,  Pa. 

H.   C.   Klinger,  Liverpool,  Pa. 

Q.  U.  S.  Krody,  Lancaster,  Pa. 

J.  Landis,  Bunker  Hill,  W.  Va. 

W.  J.  Lawson,  Andora  Nurseries,  Chestnut  Hill,  Pa. 

Chas.  E,  Lewis,  Orono,  Maine. 


245 

Edw.  Lienhard,  Mauch  Chunk,  Pa. 

K.  Lockwood,  State  Chemist,  New  York  City. 

Hon.  Amos  F.  Lunn,  State  Senate,  No.  Smithfleld,  R.  I. 

Lindley  R.  Lynch,  Providence,  R.  I. 

Garfield  McAllister,  Harrisburg,  Pa. 

Prof.  Chas.  A.  McCue,  Dover,  Del. 

John  McNabb,  Howard  Estate,  Lower  Merion,  Pa. 

James  E.  McNeal,  Lancaster,  Pa. 

Miss  M.  A.  Maffet,  264  S.  Franklin  St.,  Wilkes-Barre,  Pa. 

E.  Mather,  Harrisburg,  Pa. 

E.  S.  Mays,  Rochester,  N.  Y. 

Herman  W.  Merkel,  Zoological  Park,  New  York  City. 

W.  E.  Merriman,  Narrows,  Va. 

Dr.  John  Mickleborough,  489  Putman  Ave.,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 

J.  J.  H.  Miller,  Waynesville,  Pa. 

C.  S.  Minehart,  Orrstown,  Pa. 

Sidney  R.  Miner,  Penna.  Conservation  Asso.,  Wilkes-Barre,  Pa. 

C.  G.  Minick,  Ridgway,  Pa. 

F.  F.  Moore,  Anihert,  Mass. 

James  N.  Moore,  Legislative  Ref.  Bureau,  Harrisburg,  Pa. 

H.  A.  Moore,  Mgr.  Oak  Extract  Co.,  Newport,  Pa. 

Hon.  Jesse  B.  Mowry,  Chepachet,  R.  I. 

Harry  J.  Mueller,  Hartleton,  Pa. 

Prof.  W.  A.  Murrill,  Bronx  Botanical  Garden,  New  York  City. 

C.  L.  Nessly,  Florin,  Pa. 

S.  E.  Nevin,  Landenburg,  Pa. 

J.  B.  S.  Norton,  State  Pathologist,  College  Park,  Md. 

Hon.   W.  C.   Norton,  Waymart,  Pa. 

J.  S.  Omwake,  Shippensburg,  Pa. 

A.  N.  Palmer,  Field  Agt.  Chestnut  Tree  Blight  Commission. 

S.  E.  Pannebaker,  East  Waterford,  Pa. 

Hon.  Raymond  A.  Pearson,  Albany,  N.  Y. 

Harold  Peirce,  Secy.  P.  C.  T.  B.  C,  Haverford,  Pa. 

E.  T.  Pierce,  York,  Pa. 

Peters,  Bryne  &  Co.,  Ardmore,  Pa. 

John  M.  Phillips,  Board  of  Game  Commissioners,  Harrisburg,  Pa. 

Prof.  F.  W.  Rane,  State  Forester,  Boston,  Mass. 

Prof.  W.  Howard  Rankin,  Ithaca,  N.  Y. 

Prof.  Donald  Reddick,  Cornell   University,  Ithaca,  N.  Y. 

Dr.  H.  S.  Reed,  Blacksburg,  Va. 

W.  A.  H.  Reeder,  Reading,  Pa. 

J.  G.  Reist,  Mount  Joy,  Pa. 

C.  Reublinger,    Harrisburg,    Pa. 
P.  B.  Rice,  Lewistown,  Pa. 
John  Rick,  Reading,  Pa. 

P.  S.  Ridsdale,  Secy.  American  Forestry  Asso.,  Washington,  D.  C. 

L.  M.  Rockey,  York  Haven,  Pa. 

Keller  E.  Rockey,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

H.  Justice  Rood,  Millersville,  Pa. 

J.  W.  Root,  A.  W.  Root  &  Bro.,  Manheim,  No.  1,  Pa. 

Dr.  J.  T.  Rothrock,  West  Chester,  Pa. 

Hon.  H.  B.  Rowland,  Sanatoga  Inn,  Pottstown,  Pa. 

Dr.  Caroline  Rumbold,  University  of  Pennsylvania,  Philadelphia. 

D.  C.  Rupp,  Shiremanstown,  Pa. 


246 

David  Russell,  Shippensburg,  Pa. 

A.  F.  Satterthwaite,  Harrlsburg,  Pa. 

Oliver  D.   Schock,  Hamburg,  Pa. 

F.  D.  Search,  care  Frank  D.  Search  &  Co.,  Shickshinny,  No.  1,  Pa. 

Dr.  Augustine  D.  Selby,  Ohio  Agr.  Expt.  Station,  Wooster,  Ohio. 

J.  W.  Seltzer,  Coburn,  Pa. 

C.  E.  Seville,  McConnellsburg,  Pa. 

S.  T.  Seybert,  Berwick,  Pa. 

W.  E.  Shafer,  Mifflinburg,  Pa. 

C.  Shenk,  Lebanon,  Pa. 

W.  C.  Shepard,  Asst.  Forester,  P.  R.  R.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

John  L.  Shibeck,  Cresco,  Pa. 

S.  L.  Smedley,  Bala,  Pa. 

Edgar  H.  Smith,  Elimsport,  Pa. 

C.  M.  Smith,  Scranton,  Pa. 

Dr.  J.  Russell  Smith,  Penna.  Conservation  Asso.,  Swarthmore,  Pa. 
Heber  L.  Smith,  Reading,  Pa. 

D.  A.  Smith,  Shippensburg,  Pa. 
Michael  Smyser,  York,  Pa. 

Hon.  Henry  C.  Snavely,  Cleona,  Pa. 
Dr.  F.  Herbert  Snow,  Harrisburg,  Pa. 
C.  K.  Sober,  Lewisburg,  Pa. 
Dr.  Perley  Spaulding,  Washington,  D.  C. 
Lewis  E.  Staley,  Mont  Alto,  Pa. 
Geo.  E.  Stein,  East  Prospect,  Pa. 

F.  R.  Stevens,  Agriculturist,  L.  V.  R.  R.,  Geneva,  N.  Y. 
Prof.  Fred.  C.  Stewart,  N.  Y.  Agr.  Expt.  Station,  Geneva,  N.  Y. 
Geo.  D.  Stroh,  Pittston,  Pa. 
O.  T.  Swan,  Forest  Service,  Washington,  D.  C. 
Luke  H.  Swank,  Swank  Bldg.,  Johnstown,  Pa. 
F.  H.  Swayze,  Western  Electric  Co.,  11th  &  York,  Phila. 
William  Teas,  Marion,  Va. 
A.  Thalheimer,  Reading,  Pa. 
Rep.  Thomson  Chemical  Co.,  Baltimore,  Md. 
A.  L.  Towson,  Smithsburg,  Md. 
Albert  H.  Tuttle,  University  of  Virginia. 
R.  C.  Walton,  Field  Agt.  P.  C.  T.  B.  C,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 
Allen  G.  Walton,  Hummelstown,  Pa. 
Allen  K.  Walton,  Waltonville,  Pa. 
R.  A.  Waldron,  State  College,  Pa, 

Mrs.  Wm.  C.  Warren,  432  W.  Stafford  St.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 
Prof.  Wesley  Webb,  Secretary  State  Board  of  Agriculture,  Dover,  Del. 
W.  H.  Weber,  Pres.  The  Munson-Whitaker  Co.,  381  Fourth  Ave.,  New  York 
City. 

E.  A.  Weimer,  Lebanon,  Pa. 

R.  A.  Wheeler,  Kennett  Square,  No.  4,  Pa. 

Hon.  N.  P.  Wheeler,  Wheeler  &  Dusenbury,  Endeavor,  Pa. 

Hon.  I.  C.  Williams,  Dep.  Com.  of  Forestry,  Harrisburg,  Pa. 

Mrs.  I.  C.  Williams,  Royersford,  Pa. 

J.  R.  Williams,  Rector,  Pa. 

Jos.  R.  Wilson,  Field  Agt.  P.  C.  T.  B.  C,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

J.  K.  Wingert,  Chambersburg,  Pa. 

H.  B.  Wolf,  Field  Agt.  P.  C.  T.  B.  C,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 


INDEX. 


A. 

rage. 

Act  creating  Chestnut  Tree  Blight  Commission,   131 

Address  of  welcome  by  Governor  Tener,    15 

Address  by  Chairman  R.  A.  Pearson , 19 

Air  currents  as  carriers  of  conidia,    51 

Appropriation  to  investigate  blight,    45 

Appropriation  by  Penna.  Legislature,    106 

Appropriation ,    how   used ,    205 

Ascospores ,    vitality   of,    219 

Atwood ,   George  G. ,   remarks  by ,    24 

Atwood ,  George  G. ,  effect    of  drought ,    110 

Attractions  of  Harrisburg,    123 

B. 

Backenstoe ,    Dr.  J.   M. ,    remarks  by,    165 

Bacterial  investigation,   result  of,    191 

Baker,  Dr.  H.  P.,  The  blight  and  practice  of  forestry,   137 

Barrus,  G.  L.,  Report  as  to  prevalence  of  blight  in  New  York  State,    158 

Beetles  on  chestnut  trees ,    184 

Benson,  W.  M.,  A  possible  remedy  for  chestnut  blight,   229 

Besley,  Prof.  F.  W. ,  Report  upon  the  blight  in  Maryland,   169 

Bif ds  and   chestnut   tree   insects , 200 

Birds  as  distributors  of  blight  spores ,    103 

Birds  in  the  chestnut  groves ,    97 

Blight,   medical    treatment    of    the,     57 

Blight  in   New   Jersey  in  1898 ,    102 

Blight ,   plan  to  combat ,    140 

Blight,   possibility  of  control ^ 181 

Blight,   infections  in   Lycoming  county,    239 

Bodine ,    Samuel  T. ,   remarks  l)y ,    20 

Braunberg,   Mr.,   Value  of  Penna.  chestnut  and  damage  sustained,    171 

Bureau  of  Plant  Industry,  Report  on  ))Iight,    177 

Burning  stumps,   necessity  for,    213 

Burr  worm ,    ravages  of  the , 95 

C. 

Cassell ,  Mr. ,  Remarks  by I95 

Cause   of   chestnut   blight , 70 

Chestnut  bark  disease — can  it  be  controlled?   40 

Chestnut  bark  disease — its  I'emarkable  spread,    44 

(247) 


248 

Page. 

Chestnut  bark  disease  infections ,    50 

Chestnut  bark  disease — recent  notes  on ,    48 

Chestnut  blight  in  Connecticut,    81 

Chestnut  blight  and  forestry ,    137 

Chestnut  blight  and  constructive  consen'ation,    144 

Chestnut  blight   a   National   loss ,    145 

Chestnut  blight,    history   of, 29 

Chestnut  blight,    method  for  locating  infections 216 

Chestnut  blight  and  possible  remedy,    229 

Chestnut  blight ,  work  of  the 34 

Chestnut  burr  worm ,    the ,    84 

Chestnut  culture, 83 

Chestnuts  as  stock-food ,    101 

Chestnut  timber — growth  and  value,   144 

Chestnut  timber  in  Penna. , 16 

Chestnut  trees,   destruction  of,    17 

Chestnut  tree  diseases  of  the  past,   83 

Chestnut  trees,    general  distribution  of,    38 

Chestnut  trees ,    how    to    perpetuate ,     209 

Child,    Chester  E.,    Remarks  by, 107 

Cicada    in    chestnut    orchards,     95 

Clark,    Prof.  W.  D. ,    Remarks  by Ill 

Clinton ,   Prof.  George  P. ,   Remarks  by ,    21 

Clinton,  Prof.   George   P.,    Chestnut   blight  facts   and   theories,     75 

Clinton,   Prof.  George  P.,    Report  upon  blight  in  Connecticut,    154 

Collins,   Prof.  J.  Franklin,   Illustrated  lecture,    28 

Collins,   Prof.  J.  Franklin,   Treatment  of  orchard  and  ornamental  trees,    ..  59 

Collins,  Prof.  J.  Franklin,  Cutting  out  blight  process,  192 

Combating    plant    and    animal    pests ,     49 

Commission,   Penna.,   Chestnut  Tree  Blight,    7 

Commission's   policy,    134 

Committee  on  Resolutions ,    99 

Committee  on    Resolutions,    Report   of,     206 

Committee  to  escort  Governor,    220 

Conference,    necessity   for   holding,     7 

Connecticut,    blight    in , 107 

Control  of  the  blight,    63 

Cook ,    Dr.   Melville  T. ,    Remarks  by,    28 

Cook ,   Dr.  Melville  T. ,   The  blight  in  New  Jersey ,    161 

Cranmer,  J.  C,  Remarks  by, 118 

Cutting  out  diseased  parts,   experience  with,    67 

Cutting  out  experiments  at  Washington,    D.  C. ,    77 

D. 

Danger   signals   of   the   blight ,     236 

Davis,  Prof.  Nelson  F. ,  Address  by,   83 

Dead-line,    establishing,     221 

Defining  Diaporthe  parasitica ,     71 

Delegates  and  guests ,  list  of,    242 

Detwiler,    S.   B.,    birds  and  the  chestnut  blight,    104 

Detwiler,    S.  B. ,    "The  Pennsylvania  Programme," 129 

Devastation  by  insect  pests ,    , 138 


249 


Page. 

Development   in   sapwood   and   hardwood ,     54 

"Devil's  paint  brush ,"  how  eradicated,    203 

Diaporthe  parasitica  in  Pennsylvania  groves,    100 

Diaporthe  parasitica  in  the  South,    80 

Diaporthe  parasitica,    infective  material  of,    50 

Diseased    trees ,    locating ,     44 

Drought  favorable  to  blight,    81 

E. 

Early  history  of  Disporthe  parasitica ,    72 

Eliminating    blight    infected    trees ,     143 

Endothia   gyrosa ,     79 

Enterline ,    S.  M.  Remarks  by ,    21 

Epidemics ,    sudden ". 71 

Eradication  of  blight  by  cutting  out,    82 

Experimenting   with   cutting   out   process,     193 

F. 

Faking  tree  doctors  and  empirists,    59 

Farlow,   Prof.  W.  G. ,   paper  by,    70 

Field  studies  at  Orbisonia,  Pa. ,   54 

Field  work  of  the  Commission , 233 

Fighting  enemies  of  the  chestnut ,    95 

Fisher ,   J.  W. ,   Remarks  by ,    27 

Fisher,   Dr.  A.  K. ,  Habits  of  the  woodpeckers,    103 

Fisher,   J.  W. ,   Reports  no  blight  in  Tennessee,    174 

Food  and  mouth  disease ,  how  suppressed ,    148 

Forest  acreage  in  Pennsylvania ,    130 

Forest  and  laboratory  tests ,    202 

Forestry  management,   meaning  of,    212 

Foreword ,      3 

Francis,   Thomas  E. ,   Report  upon  field  work,    233 

Fulton,   Prof.   H.   R.,    Address  by 48 

Fungous  diseases ,    treatment  of,    43 

G. 

Germination  of  conidia  and  ascospores 52 

Giddings,  N.  J.,  Means  of  control, 105 

Giddings ,    N.    J. ,     Remarks    by ,     26 

Giddings,    N.   J.,    The  blight  situation   in   Wi-st    \'ir-ini:v 173 

Grafting  chestnut,    how  successful ,    87 

Grafting  native  chestnut  sprouts,    84 

Graves ,   Dr.  A.  H. ,   Remarks  by ,    105 

Groves  chestnut ,   to  be  kept  clean ,    90 

Growing  chestnut  trees ,    98 

Growth  of  blight  on  other  material  than  chestnut,    53 

Gussow,    Dr.   H.  T. ,    Remarks  by,    27 


250 

H. 

Page. 

Harrisburg  Board  of  Trade,  Letter  from  the, 125 

Harshberger,    Dr.  J.   W. ,   Remarks  by,    106 

Harvesting   cultivated   chestnuts,     93 

Historical  and  Pathological  Aspects  of  the  blight,    28 

History  of  the  chestnut  blight,    29 

Hopkins,   Dr.  A.  D. ,    Insect  injuries,    180 

Hopkins,  Dr.  A.  D.,  The  chestnut  bark  disease,  180 

I. 

Immune  pure-bred  varieties  of  chestnut,    , 69 

Immunity  of  chestnut  trees ,    68 

Immunizing  chestnut  not  possible,   178 

Implements  for  treating  infected   trees ,    62 

Infectious  character   of  blight , 116 

Infections ,   how  to  find ,    197 

Insects  affecting  chestnut  trees,  200 

Insects  and  the  chestnut  blight,   181 

Insects  destroyed  by   cold ,    188 

Insects,   relation  to  spread  of  the  blight,    68 

Insect  traps  in  chestnut  groves 96 

Investigations  in   Pennsylvania ,    when  commenced ,    130 

Investigations  of  chestnut  bark  disease,    39 

Italian   authorities   upon   blight   quoted,    73 

J. 

Jewett ,   F.  B. ,   Remarks  by , 112 

K. 

Keezell ,    Hon.  Geo.  B. ,    Remarks  by,    25 

L. 

Laboratory    experiments ,     134 

Lesson  from  the  San  Jose  Scale , 147 

Ijightning   injury   seat   for   inoculation ,     53 

Lime  in  chestnut  wood  ashes ,    229 

Lime  water  as  a  remedy  for  the  blight ,    231 

Longevity  of  conidia  and  ascospores ,    52 

Loss  incurred  in  Penna.  by  chestnut  blight,    130 

M. 

Machine   for   removing   chestnuts   from   burrs,     98 

Main  Line  investigations  of  blight,    164 

McFarland,  Horace,  Letter  from,    125  , 

Meetings  to  discuss  blight,    234 

Medicinal  remedies  for  chestnut  blight,   57 

Merkel ,    Dr.   Herman   W. ,    Pennsylvania's   unselfish   law ,    116 

Metcalf ,   Dr.  Haven ,   Address  by , 28 


251 

Page. 

Method    of    controlling    blight,     40 

Mickleboroiigh ,    Dr.    John ,    Remarks   by ,     114 

Mowry ,   Jesse  B. ,   Remarks  by ,    25 

Murrill,   Prof.  W.  A.,   Treatment  of  diestuut  blight,    194 

Murrill,  Prof.  W.  A.,  Questions  for  scientific  investigation,  210 

McCue,    Prof.   C.   A.,    The  chestnut   blight  in  Delaware,    166 

N. 

National  scientific  campaign   against  blight,    148 

Necessity  for  co-operation   of   States ,    7 

Newspaper  publicity  valuable  and  urged,    152 

New  York ,    blight  in ,    117 

Norton ,  J.  B.  S. ,  Remarks  by ,    22 

Nursery    stock    spreading    blight,     4S 

Nut   planting  for   trees ,    9y 

Officers   of   Harrisburg   Conference,     IS 

Official  call    for   Conference 5 

Official  programme  of  Conference,    ; 9-14 

Orchard  and  ornamental  chestnut  trees, , .  59 

Origin   of   the   blight,     177 

P. 

Paragon  chestnut   culture ,    83 

Peach  Yellows,   lesson  from  the,    148 

Pearson,   Hon.    R.    A. ,    Introductory    address    by,     19 

Pearson,   Hon.  R.  A. ,  Resolution  of  thanks  to,    222 

Peirce,   Harold,   The   need   of  co-operative   work,    225 

Peirce ,   Harold ,    Remarks   by,     18 

Pennsylvania  Forestry  Department:  Co-operation  of,  215 

Pennsylvania's  programme ,    129 

Plans  for  controlling  the  blight 146 

Predictions  regarding  the  blight,    76 

President   Taft's    letter,     I75 

Preventive   treatment ,     58 

Profitable  utilization  of  chestnut,    135 

Programme  of  Conference ,    9 

Protecting  native  chestnut  sprouts 85 

Q. 

Question  as  to  control  of  the  blight,    211 

Questions  for  scientific   investigation , 210 

R. 

Rane ,   Prof.   F.   W. ,    Need   of  co-operation 203 

Rane ,   Prof.   F.   W. ,    Remarks   by ,    23 

Rane,  Prof.  F.  W.,  Urging  co-operative  work,  202 

Rane,   Prof.  F.  W. ,    Report  of  blight  conditions  In  Massachusetts,    150 

Rankin,    Prof.   W.   Howard ,    Address  l)y ,    46 

Reclaiming    mountain    land ,     84 

Reed ,   Dr.  11.  S. ,   Chestnut  in  Virginia ,    120 

Reed,   Dr.  H.  S.,  The  blight  situation  in  Virginia,    172 


252 

Page. 

Register  of  delegates  and  guests ,    242 

Relation    of  birds   to   spread   of   blight,    103 

Rumbold,   Dr.    Caroline,     "Possibility    of    Medicinal    Remedy    for    Chestnut 

Blight," 57 

Rumbold,  Dr.  Caroline,  Report  upon  test  of  old  spores,    241 

Research  work  to  control  blight ,    46 

Resolutions  adopted  by  the  Conference,  206 

Resolutions ,    Committee  on ,    99 

Rothrock,   Dr.  Joseph  T. ,    How  to  combat  the  chestnut  blight,    123 

S. 

Sap ,   flow  in  chestnut  trees ,    65 

Scout  work  in  Lycoming  county,    235 

Selby,   Dr.  Augustine  D. ,   Remarks  by,    24 

Seventeen  year  locusts  in  chestnut  grove,   effects  of,    95 

Sheep   in  cultivated   chestnut   orchards , ^ 93 

Sheppard,  Mr.,  Remarks  by, 126 

Smith,   Dr.  J.  Russell ,   Effect  of  drought  on  trees,    118 

Smith,   Dr.  ,T.  Russell,   Chestnut  blight  and  constructive  conservation,    ....  144 

Smith,   Dr.  J.  Russell,   Value  of  chestnuts  for  stock  food,    101 

Spaulding,    Dr.  Perley,    Remarks  by, .  121 

Spores,   how  carried  by  birds  and  rain 105 

Spores ,   how    spread ,     46 

Spores ,   spread   by   air   currents ,     51 

Spores,   varying  kinds   of,    190 

Spores ,    vitality  of ,    217 

Spring,  Mr. ,   Report  upon  blight  in  Connecticut,    154 

Sproul,  Hon.  William  C,  Remarks  by,   224 

Spruce  moth  or  Nun ,   ravages  of,    139 

State  and   Federal  control  and  investigations ,    184 

Stevens,    F.   R.,    Remarks  by,    203 

Stewart,   Prof.  F.  C. ,    Controlling  the  chestnut  bark  disease,    40 

Surface,   Prof.  H.  A.,   Bird  and  insect  life,    200 

Symptoms  of  the  blight,    , .  235 

T. 

Taft,  President,  Letter  from,  175 

Tannic   acid ,     221 

Taylor,   William  A.,   Report  to  Secretary  Wilson  upon  the  blight,    179 

Tener,  Gov. ,  Opening  address  by ,   15 

Tener ,   Gov. ,   Closing  address  by ,    227 

Temperature,    effect  of  early  growth,    52 

Temperature,   effect   on    germination,     52 

Thalheimer,   A. ,    Remarks   by ,    110 

Thalheimer,   A. ,  Obsei'vations  upon  insect  life,    211 

Thanks  to  Hon.  R.  A.  Pearson ,   Chairman , 222 

Theories  regarding  the  chestnut  blight,    78 

Treatment  of  diseased  trees 42 

Treatment  of  individual  trees ,    59 

Tree  doctors ,    harm    done    by ,     165 

Tree  surgery  in  treatment  of  blight ,    62 

Trees ,  how  grown  from  nuts ,    98 

Trees  injured  by  insects ,    185 


253 

V. 

Page. 

Value  of  chestnut  in  Pennsylvania 129 

Value  of  chestnut   timber,    16 

Value  of  individual   trees ,     60 

Vitality  of  old  spores  of  the  blight ,    241 

W. 

Walton ,  R.  C. ,  report  upon  field  studies ,  54 

Weather  conditions  affecting  blight,    57 

Webb,  Dr.  Wesley,  Remarks  by,    '.  .  .  22 

Weimer,    E.  A.,    Experiences  in  combating  the  blight,    215 

AVeimer,    E.  A.,    Remarks  by, 114 

Wells,   H.  E. ,  Report  of  special  scouting  operations  in  Lycoming  county,    ..  235 

Wild  chestnut  in  Pennsylvania ,    16 

Williams,    Hon.   I.   C. ,    Blight  in  forest  preserves,    162 

Williams,   Hon.  I.  C,  Pennsylvania's  effort  to  check  blight,    108 

Williams,  Hon.  I.  C. ,  Naming  official  reporter,    19 

Williams,   Hon.  I.  C,   Best  methods  to  combat  blight,    196 

Wilson,  Hon.  James,  Letter  relating  to  blight,    175 

Wind   spreading  chestnut  blight,    I 115 

Woodpeckers  and  insects,   relation  to  blight,    135 

Z. 

Ziegler,  Mr. ,   Remarks  by,    213 


^s^smsaasm 


(254) 


